Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For West Dunbartonshire, in the room of Adam Storey McKinlay, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Hotel and Restaurant Meals

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now announce the revocation of the Meals in Establishments Orders.

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Food what decision he has now reached as to whether fish may be served as an extra course in hotels and restaurants.

Mr. Michael Astor: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now withdraw the order restricting the price of meals in hotels and restaurants to 5s.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. S. N. Evans): As my right hon. Friend told the House on 13th March and again on 20th March, he is now reviewing these regulations, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Keeling: Does the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend accept the view expressed by a caterers' association, during the week-end, that the abolition of the 5s. rule would do more than any other relaxation of control to attract foreign tourists here and to keep British holidaymakers in this country?

Mr. Evans: I would not care to say whether my right hon. Friend accepts that view or not, but this matter is under urgent consideration and everything

appertaining to the subject will be taken into account.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Does not the Minister think that, especially in the case of fish, any such relaxation would not only stimulate the demand for fish, but would give large numbers of people a chance to have, in canteens and restaurants, a little more of something they want?

Mr. Evans: We have had representations from trawler owners about the difficulties they are experiencing in disposing of fish, and that also, of course, is a consideration to which full weight will be given.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Will my hon. Friend, in considering this matter, take into consultation the new British Travel Association?

Mr. Evans: We shall be happy to listen to anyone who can make a contribution to our arriving at a right decision in this matter.

Sir Peter Macdonald: As this matter has been under consideration by the Ministry for a very long time, and as we have had several promises that an early decision would be arrived at, is it not time that they made up their minds, especially as the tourist season is approaching?

Mr. Evans: There has been a change in tenancy, and we are, I think, entitled to a reasonable time to look round. There will be no delay in arriving at a decision.

Mr. Astor: As I am still not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, will he tell me whether he agrees that the continuation of this Order is hypocritical, that it is evaded by one means or another, and that in many restaurants and hotels it does not reduce the price of food?

Mr. Evans: I could not agree that the reason for this Order was political, or that its continuation is political.

Mr. Astor: I said "hypocritical."

Mr. Evans: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.

Retailers (Fat Allocation)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Food what are the conditions under which a retailer may change his allocation of fat from a wholesaler.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Changes in the amount of fat which retailers may obtain from wholesalers are authorised by the local food office on the basis of the number of registered customers. Certain dates have been agreed with the trade associations on which retailers can change the wholesalers from whom they obtain fat, provided that eight weeks' notice is given to food offices. The next two such dates are 23rd April and 3rd December.

Mr. Hale: Is the Minister aware that the Question deals with the allocation of fat and not the amount; that if we return the fat before cooking we are told it would be all right when cooked, that if we send it back after cooking we are told it has been spoilt in cooking, and that if we write to the Ministry they look into the files, and not into the fat? In the meantime, West Oldham is facing all the horrors of a chip-less spring.

Mr. Evans: Without accepting what my hon. Friend said, I would be very pleased to go into this with him in person.

Sir William Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that present arrangements are unsatisfactory because a fish fryer or restaurateur cannot get more fat until he gets more customers, and he cannot get more customers until he gets more fat?

Olive Oil

Mr. Bell: asked the Minister of Food why his Department, acting through the Olive Oil Association, is selling olive oil at 25s. 3d. a gallon to wholesale buyers in this country when those buyers could buy best quality olive oil at 15s. 8d. a gallon f.o.b. at Spanish ports; and whether in the circumstances he will free the importation of olive oil from control by his Department.

Mr. S. N. Evans: My Department does not now buy or sell olive oil. The first step towards the decontrol of the olive oil trade was made in 1947, when the Ministry's stocks were taken over by the Olive Oil Importers' Association. So as to make the changeover to full private trading as smooth as possible, an undertaking was given to this Association that they should be the sole importers until stocks had been substantially reduced. This arrangement will terminate not later than the autumn of this year.

Mr. Bell: Does the Minister's answer mean that until the autumn of this year

home consumers of olive oil will have to pay 8s. a gallon above the world price?

Mr. Evans: It is quite true that, at the moment, oil can be bought cheaper than at the Association's price, but insurance, freight charges, and duty have to be added to the figure mentioned in the Question and, of course, the importers' profits. There is, here, a very real problem. Nobody could calculate with mathematical precision when the market would change from a seller's to a buyer's market, and I do not think it would be right to throw members of this Association to the wolves.

Mr. Harrison: Does this mean that the Department themselves are very much concerned about this obvious difference in price to the purchaser of olive oil abroad and in this country? Will my hon. Friend's Department tackle seriously this obvious anomaly?

Sir David Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that his Department, in bulk buying, paid too high a price, that they saddled importers with the stock and that they are now protecting themselves and importers at the expense of the public?

Mr. Evans: No, I did not mean anything of the kind. We entered into an arrangement with this Association as far back as 1947. There was a very good yield of olive oil last year. That, of course, has changed the market and, in the circumstances, I cannot agree that it would be right to throw members of the Association to the wolves.

Tea

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of tea he proposes to purchase from India, Pakistan and Ceylon in 1950, as compared with the 465,000,000 lb. of tea secured from those countries in 1949.

Mr. S. N. Evans: We hope to buy as much tea this year as last, but negotiations are still in progress with the Governments concerned. Last year we contracted for 454,000,000 lb.

Mr. Reid: Has my hon. Friend tried to get tea from Indonesia at a moderate price?

Mr. Evans: We hope to get a small quantity this year.

Sugar Allocations (Manufacturers)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food how much sugar has been allocated in each of the past three years for the manufacture of cakes, biscuits, table jellies and jam, respectively.

Mr. S. N. Evans: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Would it not be true to say that the allocation of sugar for manufacturing purposes has been steadily increasing

QUANTITY OF SUGAR ALLOCATED IN EACH OF THE PAST THREE YEARS TO CERTAIN INDUSTRIES, EXCLUDING EXPORTS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENTS


Year
Cake and flour Confectionery
Biscuits
Table jellies
Jam








Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons


1947
…
…
…
…
…
111,000
39,000
12,000
200,000


1948
…
…
…
…
…
101,000
31,000
11,000
200,000


1949
…
…
…
…
…
108,000
46,000
12,000
200,000

Fish

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food whether he can give an estimate of the quantity of fish caught by British trawlers which has been sold for fish meal, manure or has been wasted due to catches being landed by foreign trawlers, or because there has been a release of fish from cold store by his Department.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I am afraid that it is impossible to make any estimate of this sort. There are many reasons why the whole catch of British fish does not always find a market. In the last six months, two-thirds of the white fish sent to meal factories went in November and December, when there was some bunching of heavy landings by British vessels, but when foreign landings were not exceptionally heavy. Except during the past few days my Department has not sold any frozen fish since last summer. Most of the stocks of frozen fish are held by private traders.

Overseas Food Corporation

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how much of the £33,450,000 advanced to the Overseas Food Corporation has been used for the Groundnut Scheme in Tanganyika: and how much for the sorghum and pig project in Queensland.

over the past three years? Would my hon. Friend make it his first concern to maintain the domestic sugar ration even, if necessary, by a cut in the manufacturing allocation?

Mr. Evans: That is our hope and intention. The overall figures for manufacturers in 1950 were reduced by 35,000 tons as compared with 1949.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not take it off the ration altogether?

Following is the statement:

Mr. S. N. Evans: The sum of £32,458,680 has been allocated for expenditure in East Africa and the balance to projects undertaken by the Queensland-British Food Corporation. Of the first sum, £1,745,328 is recoverable from the East African Railways and Harbour Administration.

Mr. Hurd: May the House be told whether the Minister of Food has yet had the opportunity of discussing expenditure with the Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation, so that we do not accumulate any more white elephants in Tanganyika?

Mr. Evans: I do not know what conversations the Minister may or may not have had with the Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation. This project is being given very careful examination.

Rations

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that he will pay special attention to the needs of the individual ration-book holder when granting any ration increases in the near future.

Mr. S. N. Evans: That people living alone sometimes have special difficulties over rations is fully recognised, but to attempt to give such persons differential rations would prove, I am afraid, an impossible task.

Mr. Remnant: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the proportions allocated to private rations and to catering establishments?

Mr. Evans: No, Sir, not without notice.

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider giving smallholders the right to claim the additional rations now granted to agricultural workers.

Mr. S. N. Evans: No, Sir. The special cheese ration for agricultural workers is meant to provide for packed lunches to be eaten away from home, while working on their employer's farm. Smallholders are free to return home for meals.

Mr. Remnant: Will the hon. Member consult with the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain whether equal shares of food can be given for equal work?

Points Goods (Rural Areas)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange to have supplies of points goods available at shops in the rural areas suitable for farm workers at the busy seasons on the farms.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Many of the foods covered by the points scheme are now fairly plentiful in all parts of the country. I regret I cannot promise that rural areas will be given a preferential share of any particular food. The Ministry's regional and local food officers will, however, be very willing to assist in overcoming any individual difficulties which may arise.

Mr. Gooch: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is necessary to have points goods suitable for farm workers in villages at certain seasons in the year? Will he look into this matter again, because it is rather important to the countryside?

Mr. Evans: I will look into the matter, but I would point out that all grocers are able to carry stocks which have regard to the consideration my hon. Friend has raised.

Lady Tweedsmuir: When does the Minister hope to make a statement on the possible ending of the points rationing scheme?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there is a real difficulty about the annual shortage of extra points goods, and that it would be greatly appreciated if he could do better this year than has been done in the past?

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister give the same preference to the agricultural areas as is given to the mining areas?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Minister intends to end points rationing?

Mr. Evans: It would be quite wrong for me to anticipate any ministerial statement.

Captain Crookshank: Are we to take it, then, that reports this morning of speeches by the Minister have no foundation in fact?

Mr. De la Bère: Where are we?

Oranges, Accrington

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Accrington has not had any recent allocation of oranges; and whether this situation will be remedied.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Arrivals of oranges are rather few and far between at the moment because we are coming to the end of the winter season. But over the past 12 months, I would assure my hon. Friend that Accrington has done at least as well as any other part of the country.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking about the last 12 months and that according to my information Accrington has had no oranges for the last five weeks?

Mr. Evans: We have to allocate to different parts of the country at different times. We never get sufficient at one time to cover the whole of the country.

Fruit and Vegetables (Imports)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the issue of a general licence to permit the import of new potatoes from European France between 21st March and 31st May next will not cause financial loss to Cornish growers, in view of the


fact that the Cornish crop is expected to come on to the market during the last two weeks of May.

Mr. S. N. Evans: There is seldom any large quantity of new potatoes from Cornwall ready in May, and it is not anticipated, therefore, that difficulty will arise.

Mr. Wilson: Would the Minister agree that if West Cornish potatoes start coming on the market at the end of May, at the same time as French and Jersey potatoes, there may be an accumulation which would carry over into the first week in June and cause a glut when the bulk lifting of Cornish potatoes takes place?

Mr. Evans: My information is that there is seldom any large quantity of Cornish new potatoes ready in May. This question ties up with the attempts which we are making to liberalise European trade.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider the date of expiry of the general import licence if he is assured that sufficient quantities of Cornish new potatoes are available early in May?

Mr. Evans: I am going to look into that.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food which of the following fruits and vegetables are to be received in this country under the Trade and Financial Agreement between the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia of 28th September, 1949, for which we agreed to pay the sum of £1,900,000 in the first year; and whether there are any others not here listed: onions, bilberries, horseradish, fresh cherries, fresh plums, apricots, fresh pears and apples.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Under the Trade and Financial Agreement with Czechoslovakia, the trade has imported very small quantities of onions, bilberries and pears; no other fresh fruits or vegetables have been received or are expected in the first year of the Agreement. The figure of £1,900,000 to which the hon. Member refers relates almost entirely to imports of foodstuffs on private account, and will only be reached if traders think the demand in this country warrants it.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister give an assurance that no British farmers will suffer on account of this Agreement?

Mr. Evans: I cannot give a guarantee to that extent. It is in the interests of this country to expand world trade as much as possible, and that can only be done if we are prepared to deal with other countries as we expect them to deal with us.

Mr. Coldrick: Will the Parliamentary Secretary have regard to the requirements of the consumer at the same time as he is considering the interests of the producer in this matter?

Mr. Evans: Yes, Sir.

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of apples were imported by his Department during 1949; what were the respective amounts of foreign currencies used to buy those apples; what was the sterling equivalent of the total sum; what total sum of money was received by his Department from the sale of the apples in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of the apples so imported were wasted.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Approximately 88,000 tons of apples, valued in sterling at about £3 ¾ million c.i.f., were imported by my Department in 1949. The only non-sterling currency included in this figure was approximately 700,000 dollars for Canadian apples. The amount realised on sale, after meeting distribution costs in this country, was about £5¼ million. The wastage was about 3 per cent.

Mr. Renton: Could the hon. Gentleman say what amount of dollars was represented by that wastage?

Mr. Evans: No, Sir; not without notice.

Earl Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very large sums of money invested in scientific apple culture in this country in the last few years, the large amount of employment given and the value of the trade? Will he have regard to those facts in any future negotiations for the purchase of foreign apples?

Mr. Evans: We always have full regard for the interests of home producers.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that a good many Kentish growers of apples last year did not sell all they grew? Is it not very unfortunate that we should be importing apples when we have very good apples of our own which we are not able to sell?

Hon. Members: Bring the price down.

Mr. Evans: Foreigners often pack and market apples more attractively than we do.

Mr. Mellish: If my hon. Friend knows of any of these good apples which Kentish farmers are unable to sell will he send them to Bermondsey? We have none there.

Captain Crookshank: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government refused to allow home growers to have the packings for which they asked?

Earl Winterton: In view of the serious charge which he has just made will the hon. Gentleman remember that his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has said on more than one occasion that the best apple packing in this country is better than that of anywhere else in the world? Will he withdraw his statement, which was a serious reflection on the industry?

Mr. Evans: I do not want to be offensive to anybody, but I say that foreigners often grade and pack their commodities rather more attractively than some of our people do at home.

Mr. Paton: Is it not the case that, in spite of great developments in home growing during the last few years, it is still almost impossible to buy decent eating apples in many places in this country?

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of pears were imported by his Department during 1949; what were the respective amounts of foreign currencies used to buy those pears; what was the sterling equivalent of the total sum; what total sum of money was received by his Department from the sale of the pears in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of the pears so imported were wasted.

Mr. S. N. Evans: My Department did not import any pears in 1949. The remaining parts of the Question do not, therefore, arise.

Potatoes (Transport)

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that under his existing Order dated 10th March, potatoes in certain areas can only be transported

by a "C" licence lorry which imposes an unnecessary restriction on the disposal of the potatoes; and what steps he will take to remedy this position.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Restrictions on the movement of potatoes from certain counties were quite deliberately imposed by an Order dated 17th February to reserve the better keeping potatoes for consumption at the end of the season. They will be removed when it becomes desirable to draw on those supplies. To avoid interference with local trade movement in "C" licence vehicles is allowed.

Mr. Odey: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the loss to British transport services and to British Railways by an absurd order of this kind?

Mr. Evans: Yes, Sir.

Cream

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Food when he will allow Devonshire farmers to sell clotted cream.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of increased milk production, he is prepared to authorise the sale of clotted cream.

Mr. S. N. Evans: There are serious difficulties about this and I can add nothing at present to the answer already given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lambert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause great disappointment to people living in Devonshire, who believe that Devonshire cream would be a great inducement to tourists and would compensate them to some extent for their dull rations?

Mr. Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that this proposal would be very helpful to many farms in the County of Devon? Will he also remember that, as my hon. Friend has said, the numerous visitors we get to the county are very partial to a modicum of Devonshire cream? It is one of the many important amenities of Devon.

Mr. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cornish cream is equally as good as Devonshire cream?

Mr. John Hynd: Will my hon. Friend see that permission to produce whipped cream will not be given unless and until everybody has a full milk ration?

Flour

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Food what is the degree of extraction of flour from wheat in use today for the making of normal bread; the degree of extraction in 1938; and what are the contents in each case, of protein, fat, iron, calcium, phosphorus and vitamins, including carotene.

Mr. S. N. Evans: The extraction rate of flour used in 1938 varied, but 70 per cent. was the most usual; the present extraction rate is 85 per cent. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the average composition of flour of 70 per cent. and 85 per cent. extraction rate.

Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that Members of Parliament have recently received urgent recommendations from some of the parties interested in bread making, asking us to press for a return to the old extraction rate? Will my hon. Friend tell us whether his Department is satisfied that the present grade is healthier and better than the pre-war grade?

Mr. Evans: All I can say is that we get representations from both sides—some for and some against. We have to arrive at what we think is the best conclusion having regard to the whole situation.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Minister agree that in 1945 Government experts stated that an 80 per cent. extraction rate supplied all the vitamins that were necessary?

Following is the information:

The average composition of flour of 70 per cent. and 85 per cent. extraction rates is as follows:


—
70 per cent. extraction
85 per cent. extraction



per oz.
per oz.


Protein
3·1 g
3·3 g


Fat
0·3 g
0·5 g


Iron
0·28 mg
0·6 mg


Calcium
4·5 mg
46 mg*


Phosphorus
26 mg
54 mg


vitamin B1 (aneurin)
0·021 mg
0·082 mg


Riboflavin
0·017 mg
0·37 mg


Nicotinic acid
0·23 mg
0·57 mg


*Includes calcium added as creta preparata.

Flour contains a negligible quantity of vitamin A (or carotene) and no vitamins C or D.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food how much of the flour used for human consumption is bleached by means of nitrogen trichloride or other agents.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Over 90 per cent. is treated with nitrogen trichloride; of the remainder, some is untreated and the balance is treated with any of several lesser known flour improvers.

Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that for some considerable time we have known that animals are very seriously affected when they eat flour treated in this way, and that this treatment is illegal in many countries, including America? Will he give an assurance that his Department will consider making representations with a view to stopping this practice altogether?

Mr. Evans: The information I have is that there is nothing detrimental at all to human health in the present method of treating flour. So far as any harm to animals is concerned, as that has been raised I will go into the matter.

Dr. Stross: Will my hon. Friend ask his experts to reconsider the matter, in view of recent evidence and publications?

Mr. Evans: If my hon. Friend has any evidence I shall be very happy to consider it.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food by how much the agene process has been increased per sack of flour since 1939; and to what extent the agene process is to be continued.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As to the second part, a change in technique which affects over 90 per cent. of the flour used in this country is being introduced, but this will take some time to effect, especially as the necessary plant, and supplies of the new improver (chlorine dioxide) have to be secured from the United States. However, the millers in co-operation with the Ministry are doing all they can to speed the change. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an announcement made by the Ministry of Health and my Department on 27th January, which explains the position.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Gentleman mentioned "improver." Can he say what improvement is being sought?

Mr. Evans: Possibly in palatability, for one thing.

Dried Egg

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the dried egg which has been, or is about to be purchased from the United States of America, he will give the approximate date of the manufacture of this dried egg and an assurance that no part of the quantities purchased have been manufactured for more than three years.

Mr. S. N. Evans: It was all made in 1949.

Mr. De la Bèere: May we be quite sure that the Government will not lend themselves to the purchase of dried egg which is over two years old, in view of the large quantities which exist in many parts of the world? May I have that assurance?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may have that assurance. We have the word of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that this sale is from 1949 production.

Sausage Casings

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Food if he will now cease to trade in sheep and hog casings and allow the export of sheep casings, without licence, and the import of hog casings from the United States of America and Canada, under licence, by private traders.

Mr. S. N. Evans: The Ministry of Food does not trade in sheep and hog casings. While the present shortage of sausage casings continues we cannot allow sheep casings to be exported, except where they will earn dollars or other hard currency. Some hog casings are already imported under licence from the U.S.A. and Canada and paid for with dollars earned by the export of sheep casings to those countries, but I regret that we cannot afford any more dollars for further imports.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does that affect the price of haggis?

Coffee

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Food what alteration in the price of coffee is contemplated.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Because of the big rise in the world price of coffee there will have to be some increase in retail prices in this country. I cannot yet say when or how much this will be.

Slaughtering Facilities, Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that slaughtering facilities at Newbury are inadequate to deal with the additional bacon pigs now being offered for slaughter there owing to foot and mouth disease regulations; and if he will arrange for an additional slaughterhouse to be opened so that local farmers and smallholders can dispose of pigs before they become wastefully fat.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I know that the prolonged foot and mouth disease restrictions in the Newbury district have prevented the slaughter of pigs at the usual places outside the restricted area and have resulted in increased numbers having to be killed at Newbury slaughterhouse and at the Abingdon bacon factory. I am having inquiries made locally to see if there is any other slaughterhouse that could be brought into use immediately to handle pigs.

Mr. Hurd: Will not the Minister act promptly? These slaughterhouses are not being used, yet over the week-end I had no fewer than six telephone calls from farmers and smallholders who cannot get their pigs killed?

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member will give me the addresses of the slaughterhouses I will go into it immediately.

Shrimps

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food if he will allocate more butter or margarine for the preserving and potting of an increased quantity of Morecambe shrimps.

Mr. S. N. Evans: We will willingly consider any individual application on its merits.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this delicious food is full of protein and, since it will make a contribution to the variety of our food, will he be generous to the producers in this matter?

Mr. Evans: It is because we know that fact that we are quite willing to consider any application.

Mr. Harrison: In his willingness to consider these applications will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the necessity of not granting too much margarine and butter to manufacturers while we have such short supplies of butter at home?

Bread

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what is the drop in the consumption of bread in the last three months; what is the percentage of dollar wheat in flour in 1949; and what is the proposed percentage in 1950.

Mr. S. N. Evans: There has been very little change in the consumption of bread during the last three months, except for a small seasonal drop in January. The dollar wheat content of the flour distributed in 1949 was about 58 per cent., but it is too early to forecast what the corresponding percentage may be in 1950.

Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell me the proportion for 1950, can he tell me the proportion for the first three months of this year?

Mr. Evans: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — VODKA (TRADE DESCRIPTION)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Food from what countries the alcoholic liquor known as vodka, or vodka, is allowed to be imported and sold in the United Kingdom as vodka without some such qualification as French vodka; whether he is aware that most vodka for export has at all times been manufactured outside Russia in such countries as Latvia and Poland; that much of the manufacture in Western Europe is now being carried on by the original producers whose business in Latvia was confiscated; and whether he will modify the Labelling of Food Order, 1946, so as to permit all vodka to be sold as such.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Under the Labelling of Food Order, if the name used for a drink suggests that it comes from a particular country or area when, in fact, it comes from some other place, then the

label must say so. The question how the Order applies to any particular drink is, of course, ultimately for the courts to decide; but subject to that my view is that vodka from a Western European country would have to be described on the label by an adjective indicating the country of origin. I do not think this requirement is unreasonable or that the Order need be amended.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the policy he is pursuing means that only vodka coming from a Communist origin can be so described and does he not agree that when exactly the same beverage can be manufactured in non-Communist countries it might be allowed to be sold as such?

Mr. De Chair: Is this vodka capable of penetrating an Iron Curtain?

Mr. Mikardo: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will deal with all supplies of this liquor in the same way, whether they are described as "vodka" or as "wodka"?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in any case vodka made in France would have a label saying "Produce of France," and is that not sufficient descriptive differentiation? Is he not further aware that vodka is vodka, wherever it is made?

Mr. Evans: I would point out that this cuts two ways. It might be said that whisky is whisky, whatever its source of origin, but Scotch whisky producers would be very sorry if anybody could use the word "Scotch."

Mr. James Hudson: Would not the hon. Gentleman avoid all these difficulties about the label if he were to say honestly, on all the bottles, that they were poison?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Air Station, Culham (Coach Service)

Mr. John Hay: asked the Minister of Transport why Messrs. Abingdon Coaches have been ordered to discontinue the private motor-coach service provided by them for naval personnel stationed at Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, proceeding on week-end leave to London; and whether he will make a statement.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds men of the Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, Berkshire, were prevented from travelling on week-end leave by motor-coach by his withdrawal of their coach, and so obliged to travel by train.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Acting under his general instructions to secure all reasonable economy in the consumption of motor fuel, especially where empty running is involved, the Regional Transport Commissioner arranged with the coach company not to use their fuel ration for the service in question. It is in the public interest that the best use should be made of the limited amount of fuel available to operators and that it should not be spent unnecessarily on journeys for which, as in this instance, there are reasonable alternative facilities.

Mr. Hay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only the firm mentioned in the Question, but also four other firms were advised by his Department that unless they stopped this service their allocation of petrol would be cut off completely? Does he and his Department approve of this sort of blackmail?

Mr. Barnes: I should like to look into the question of whether there was an instruction or not. This is a common practice with regional transport commissioners and operators throughout the country. It is to avoid empty running. I am not aware that in this case there was an instruction. My information is that it was a case of the usual practice of co-operation between operators and the regional transport commissioner.

Captain Ryder: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Admiralty in this matter? If so, what are their reactions?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. It is not a matter for the Minister. There are general instructions to regional transport commissioners, as I have indicated, to save fuel. At this stage it is a matter for the commissioner and not for overriding decision by the Minister.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this sort of thing is happening in other parts of the country, and that it causes difficulty, especially for men going home on week-end leave who have no

train facilities available? It cuts down their leave. It hits them very hard.

Mr. Barnes: I quite appreciate the need for every consideration to be given to such circumstances. On the other hand, it is essential, in furtherance of general national policy, that these journeys should not be unduly expensive in fuel consumption. In this case additional facilities were provided which largely met the circumstances.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman says that these are matters for regional decision. Will he not agree that the final responsibility is his and, therefore, Parliament's? Will he look at this again to see, if he does not agree with the regional authorities, what other steps he can take?

Mr. Barnes: Yes; but while I do not dispute for a moment that the final decision rests with the Minister, in this case it would mean withdrawing the general instruction about the need to save fuel, which, of course, is a Government one.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman really say that this decision was taken to save fuel? Is he sure it was not to drive traffic somewhere else?

Mr. Barnes: I can give the assurance that this decision was not taken for the purpose of driving traffic to any other form of transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Had there been a scheduled bus service in this case the same decision would have applied. It is in line with the decisions being operated all over the country, to avoid empty running. In this case it would have meant empty running on both the outward and return journeys.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the Minister aware that in the case of one city, which is on the main line, and where there is a barracks within a quarter of a mile of the station, a similar order has been introduced? Surely, that cannot save very much petrol.

Mr. Hay: I beg to give notice that in view of the gravity of the matter and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise the question again at the earliest possible moment.

Charges

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to accept or reject the advice now


tendered to him by the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal acting as an advisory committee under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947.

Mr. Barnes: This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Thorneycroft: How long does the right hon. Gentleman propose to delay this important decision? Is he aware—are the Cabinet aware—of the very great hardships and difficulties which are being imposed on private enterprise by the fact that people are incapable of fixing their prices until they know what the costs of transport are to be?

Mr. Barnes: I was under the impression that in a recent Debate the hon. Member himself was urging the importance of the effects of such a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At the moment, I have nothing to add to the statement I have made.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before we adjourn for Easter?

Mr. Barnes: I do not know that I shall be in a position to do so; I cannot say definitely at the moment.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the inter-Departmental inquiry discussing transport rates in Scotland can discuss the subject intelligently when they do not know on what to base their costs?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Barnes: I can only repeat that I am not able to make any further statement now.

Consultative Committees

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to set up area users consultative committees throughout the country.

Mr. Barnes: The Central Transport Consultative Committee has been in existence since December, 1948. Committees for Scotland and Wales are operating, and I recently set up the Area Transport Users Consultative Committee for London. My view is that until the British Transport Commission has had a reasonable time in which to make progress in the consolidation of their undertakings, it

is not desirable to set up the local committees provided for in the Act. I had also hoped that I could take into consideration the needs of area road passenger schemes in deciding the areas of these consultative committees, but progress in this direction has not been as rapid as I would have wished and, consequently, I propose to reconsider the establishment of these area transport users consultative committees.

Mr. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if those bodies were set up the relationships between Transport Commission and the users of transport would be very much better than they are at present?

Mr. Barnes: As I have already said, I am proposing to consider that matter now.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer show that this method of safeguarding consumers is now a demonstrable farce? He says he has set up the London area one, but is he not aware that he set it up only four weeks ago, that no recommendations have come from it, and that despite that the Transport Commission are now trying to screw another £3½ million out of the travelling public in London?

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many rural areas, very inadequately served by buses and trains, whose problems can only be solved in consultation with the people on the spot, the people who live there; and does his answer today mean that he is not going to set up consultative committees to cover such areas as Essex and East Anglia?

Mr. Barnes: No, certainly not. If my hon. Friend will read my reply he will see that it is the intention now to review this situation and to proceed.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is it a fact that the consultative committee for Wales has met on only one occasion since it was set up?

Mr. Barnes: I am not aware of that.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The Minister based his explanation on the delay in the setting up of an area scheme. Is he taking any action to speed up the progress of the area scheme?

Mr. Barnes: It would certainly have been an advantage if one could have taken that problem into consideration. As I have pointed out, I cannot wait any longer.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: In view of the fact that the restrictions placed on Members of the House were related to the existence of these advisory committees, if the advisory committees are not to be appointed will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his colleague the Lord President to revise the rights of Members in asking questions about transport problems.

Mr. Barnes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot properly have digested my reply. I have not indicated that it is not the intention. I have explained the reason why they have not been appointed, and have said that it is the intention to review this matter.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. Is not the question of the right of Members to ask questions a matter to be determined by you, Mr. Speaker, and not by the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of the custom of the House, which I have to interpret.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Is it not a fact that not one recommendation affecting fares in London has come to the right hon. Gentleman from the whole of this machinery to date? Does not that mean, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, that the whole machinery for looking after the consumer has completely broken down in this connection?

Mr. Barnes: I entirely disagree with that view. As I explained during one of our Debates, the procedure is for these bodies to make their representations to the Minister. It does not follow that they will not, but I am not able to say whether they will or not; they have the opportunity.

Maritime Consultative Organisation

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport which Governments have now ratified the March, 1948, Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation; and what progress is now being made with this organisation.

Mr. Barnes: So far, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands have accepted the Convention to which my hon. Friend refers. It does not, however, come into operation until it has been accepted by 21 countries, including seven with not less than one million gross tons of shipping. Preparations for the setting up of the organisation have been carried as far as possible in these circumstances.

Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister not give us any further information as to the prospects of this organisation being established, and as to when these other ratifications are likely to come about? In the meantime, what is happening about discriminatory practices, which are the main reason for setting up this organisation?

Mr. Barnes: All I can say is that the Foreign Office are doing all they possibly can to influence other countries to sign this Convention.

Trams, South London

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport whether any date has yet been fixed for the abandonment of the South London trams and their substitution by buses; whether this is to take place gradually; and whether he will publish the proposed time-table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Barnes: It is expected that the conversion of the South London trams to bus operations will start in the autumn of this year, and that the programme will be completed in 1952.

Pedestrian Crossings

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds he has now decided that a pedestrian has the right to cross the road at a controlled crossing when the lights are green to the motorist, which is contrary to his previous decision.

Mr. Barnes: I am sorry if there appears to have been any inconsistency in my statements on this matter, but it is by no means a simple one. The existing regulations give priority to the pedestrian who has started to cross on a controlled crossing before traffic has been permitted by a signal to proceed over the crossing. This would be straightforward if it was not necessary


to take into account turning traffic and traffic at complex junctions. I had hoped by revising the existing regulations to define precisely the respective rights and obligations of pedestrians and motorists at controlled crossings in all circumstances in clear and simple language, but this has not proved practicable. For this reason, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. North-West (Mr. Janner), on 27th March, I may have to deal with the problem by giving guidance on the subject in the Highway Code.

Captain Crowder: Will the Minister do his best to expedite these regulations, because the public do not know where they stand? Is he aware that on 15th November, 1948, in reply to Vice-Admiral Taylor, he said:
No, Sir, the pedestrian has not that right when the lights are against him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 3.]
It now appears that only the other day the Minister said exactly the opposite. Could he, therefore, issue the regulations as soon as possible?

Mr. Barnes: I have already explained that so far my legal advisers and the police cannot agree on simple and clear language that would make the position plain to the public. That is why it is probable that this will have to be dealt with in the Highway Code.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does that imply that when it is dealt with in the Highway Code the language will be neither sensible, simple, nor clear?

Mr. Barnes: It is quite possible to give general guidance without a legal definition. After all, the Highway Code is taken into consideration by the courts, and yet they are not bound by definite legal language.

Mr. Edward Davies: When the Minister reviews the present arrangements about pedestrian crossings where there are lights, will he also try to make clear what is the position where there are pedestrian crossing and no lights, as there is still a great deal of confusion?

Mr. Barnes: In that case the position is plain: the pedestrian has the right.

Level Crossings

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report which, in February, 1949, he asked the Transport Commission to submit on the question of occupational level crossings; what steps he proposes to take to bring the legal position of people using such crossings into line with modern practice; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, but I am informed that considerable progress has been made in the study of the legal and practical problems involved, and that the British Transport Commission expect to be able to send to me in the course of the next few weeks the report which the Railway Executive are preparing.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer which he has just given is only a slight elaboration of the answer he gave over a year ago; and will he say whether it is the policy of the Commission to allow their decisions to mature as long as possible in the hope that they will improve?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT TRADING OPERATIONS

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the international friction caused by inter-Government trading, as exemplified by the recent dealings with the Argentine over meat, he will consider the present policy of Government trading in food and raw materials.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his colleagues recently described the trading behaviour of a country with whom we are in friendly relations as "blackmail"? Does he realise that language such as that, whether justified or not, is bound to produce bad blood and international friction, which would be avoided if these transactions were left to private traders—who, incidentally, would do the job very much bettor?

Mr. S. Silverman: When my right hon Friend is considering this matter, will he also bear in mind the importance of avoiding any friction with the Commonwealth, and that almost the first act of the new Commonwealth Government of Australia was to ask that bulk purchase agreements should be increased from five years to 15 years?

Mr. Maclay: Does the Prime Minister realise that the case of the Argentine is by no means the only one in which Government trading operations have resulted in ill-feeling in disproportion to a new contract, and that this is one of the most valid reasons for giving up State trading?

The Prime Minister: No there are a number of very good reasons to the contrary, and a number of incidents, far more numerous than the hon. Gentleman his recited, in which there are most excellent relations with other Governments just because of bulk trading which benefits both sides.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: It the right hon. Gentleman will not answer the supplementary question put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), will he answer this question: Can he tell the House whether either he or the Foreign Secretary were consulted before the Minister of Food used this language?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down that question it does not arise on the Question asked.

Sir Waldron Smithers: When will the Prime Minister and the Government realise that bulk purchase inevitably means bulk selling, and that it is the main cause of high prices and shortages? When will he allow business to revert to people who know their business, instead of being undertaken by a lot of bureaucrats?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH SUGAR SUPPLIES

Mr. Frank McLeavy: asked the Minister of Food if he has any statement to make about the progress of the Commonwealth sugar negotiation.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman said he would, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions. I have had no request for permission for the statement to be made. No Question can be answered at the end of Questions unless it is with my permission.

Mr. Evans: I apologise most profusely. Sir. My information was that that permission had been applied for and conceded.

Hon. Members: To whom?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman should get on to his Department and tell them to be a little more accurate.

Mr. Evans: Again I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will most certainly do that.

Captain Crookshank: May we take it. Mr. Speaker, that you will give the permission now?

Mr. Speaker: Probably it is a long statement, and we had better take it afterwards. I have made my protest, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Department will take notice of it.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Evans: On 16th January, 1950, my Department issued a full statement dealing with the offer which the Government had made to Commonwealth sugar producers and I will arrange for a copy of this statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Briefly, it said that we should continue to find a market for all Commonwealth sugar available for export up to and including 1952. We had asked Commonwealth producers for the time being not to plan to increase their exports during the five years beginning in 1953 beyond the figure of 2,350,000 tons of which the share of the Colonies was 1,550,000 tons. We had offered to buy 1,100,000 tons of Colonial sugar a year during the five years in question at reasonably remunerative prices to be negotiated annually.
Provisional agreement has been reached on these proposals with all Commonwealth sugar-exporting countries except the West Indies. Our offer to the West Indies was to buy 640,000 tons each year at the negotiated prices, out of total exports planned provisionally at not more than 900,000 tons. A conference of repre


sentatives of West Indian legislatures and of producers and workers in the sugar industry met in Grenada in February, 1950, and requested His Majesty's Government to receive a delegation of members of legislatures and representatives of labour to press for an increase of the figure of 640,000 tons to 725,000 tons.
His Majesty's Government have considered this request most carefully. They appreciate the importance of the sugar industry in the economy of the British West Indies, but the offer already made, after prolonged discussions, took account of this and of the many other considerations which bear on this subject and is final. If after consideration of this statement it is still desired that a delegation should come to the United Kingdom His Majesty's Government will be willing to receive it, but they regret that they can hold out no prospect whatever of amending their offer.
His Majesty's Government have given further consideration to the position of British Honduras as a potential exporter of sugar. Great importance attaches to the development of British Honduras not only in the interests of the people of that colony, but in the hope that it will provide some outlet for surplus populations in the island Colonies of the British West Indies.
The Evans Commission laid great emphasis on the value for this purpose of establishing a sugar industry in British Honduras. His Majesty's Government therefore agree that the aggregate amount of Commonwealth sugar exports planned for the five years beginning in 1953 shall be increased to 2,375,000 tons, and that British Honduras shall be entitled to export 25,000 tons of sugar annually, of which His Majesty's Government will undertake to buy 18,000 tons a year at reasonably remunerative prices to be negotiated annually.

Mr. McLeavy: While thanking my hon. Friend for this very important statement, may I ask how the figures of 640,000 tons and 900,000 tons to which he referred compare with the pre-war and present exports from the West Indies to the United Kingdom, and what are the total exports from the West Indies?

Mr. Evans: The total exports before the war were 549,000 tons, of which

247,000 tons came to the United Kingdom. The total exports for 1949 were 690,000 tons of which 363,000 tons came to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Whatever the final decision of the Government may be on this subject, would it not have been wiser and more courteous, in view of the very representative character of the delegation who wished to come here, to have allowed them to come and discuss it, rather than to have said, "You can only come on the condition that the Government's mind is already made up"; and is not the natural feeling which they would have about that likely to be increased by the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made about British Honduras, which appears to show that there is some pool of non-Commonwealth sugar from which additional allocations can still be made?

Mr. Evans: If the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that the West Indies are now faced with a fait accompli, that would be quite wrong. There have been prolonged negotiations on this matter. Of course, other Commonwealth sugar producers are concerned to the extent of very large tonnages. For example, Australia, 600,000 tons; South Africa, 200,000 tons; Mauritius, 475,000 tons; Fiji, 150,000 tons. If this tonnage is not agreed and if concessions are made to the West Indies, these other Commonwealth exporters will demand consideration on the same scale, and therefore—

Mr. De la Bère: Why not take all the sugar?

Mr. Evans: —we feel that on the whole this is a very fair agreement, and that it is as far as we can go.

Mr. Stanley: Since the hon. Member has found it possible to make an extra allocation of sugar in the case of British Honduras without, presumably, having any ill effects on the other Colonies, why is it not possible to have an adequate allocation for the British West Indies?

Mr. Evans: This, of course, does raise very large issues, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand. Britain cannot be a high price consumer and a low cost producer. Therefore, this question has to be viewed in relation to our need to be able to export at competitive prices. There


has been a good deal of research and development in the field of sugar production over the last few years, and we are, it is true, keeping a reserve pool, so to speak, to the end that our friends may be induced to make use of all that wealth of research and knowledge that the march or science has made available. In other words, if we are to take the surplus it must bear some relation to world prices.

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the resettlement of British Honduras envisaged by the Evans Commission is of only a relatively small number of people from the islands over a period of 10 years? Will he also bear in mind that although it may not be desirable ultimately that a country like Jamaica should be based on a one-crop economy, none the less it is a fact that Jamaica is much more exclusively dependent on sugar exports than a great Dominion such as Australia?

Mr. Evans: I beg to assure my hon. Friend that we accept that, and that it has been taken fully into consideration in arriving at this figure.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Why should we still be tied to Cuba as a source of supply of sugar, when our own Colonies are restricted in their production and devaluation of the £ sterling has imposed very great hardship on some of our West Indian countries owing to the fact that they have to deal with dollar areas? Will the hon. Gentleman allow these facts to be taken into consideration, and ask this delegation to come to this country and consider the whole problem concerning the West Indies?

Mr. Evans: We should be very happy indeed to take very much more sugar than we are at present getting from Commonwealth suppliers. I do not want to appear discourteous to our West Indian friends. If they feel, in the light of all that has been said, that they still want to come, then, if they come, we shall be happy to receive them, but I hope they will not come at any rate, until the end of April.

Mr. Eden: May I ask either the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister—as I do not think any of us feel very happy about the proposition that representatives of the West Indies may come here but find that all has been settled before they

arrive—whether, in view of the immense importance of this question to their economy and the admitted increased difficulties they have had to face since devaluation, the Government will not reconsider this question, invite them to come and reserve a final decision until after discussions have taken place with the West Indian representatives?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This matter was very carefully considered. We had to make a balance between the various Commonwealth countries with the greatest care. Obviously, we did not wish to deny the right of our friends in Jamaica to come and talk with us if they wished, but it would really be wrong to suspend the negotiations for the purposes of that delegation; otherwise we shall prejudice the balance with other Commonwealth countries, and the rights of these countries to argue their case. That was the difficulty we were in. On the other hand, when we finally had to consider whether, if they sent representatives, we should talk to them or not, we felt we had to say to them that we could not hold out hope that they would get additional orders.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that there is a very considerable pool not allocated to Commonwealth countries that could be allocated without interfering with anyone's share. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no secret undertaking given to Cuba as to the amount of sugar we are to purchase from her, which prevents an extra allocation within the Commonwealth?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know anything about a secret undertaking to Cuba. There is a margin, it is true, but it is quite a limited margin. I venture to say that it is desirable, in the interests of the consumer, that there shall be some free play in the markets in order that we can check up on bulk purchase agreements. I would remind Members opposite that at the election they denounced the whole of this bulk purchasing business, but that they are now complaining there is not enough of it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does not my hon. Friend think it is somewhat unfair to compare the position of the West Indies today under the proposed agreement with the pre-war position, since under the prewar position the West Indies were suffer


ing from an acute depression, and that therefore the comparison from their point of view is not a fair one, although it may be fair from the point of view of Dominions such as Australia? In the second case, if we are to judge the wisdom of this decision to reject proposals made at the West Indian conference, will my hon. Friend tell us what expansion in sugar production in the West Indies is envisaged under this proposal, so that we may judge whether, under the guaranteed arrangement to be provided by these proposals, there shall be a full opportunity for the expansion of the sugar industry in the islands?

Mr. Evans: As I recall it, the expansion as compared with pre-war, taking from 1935 to 1938 and averaging it, is very substantial. It is certainly in the neighbourhood of 350,000 tons to 400,000 tons. We have taken very carefully into account all that my hon. Friend has said before arriving at this figure. We have done a good deal for the West Indies. Before the war, the only protection they had was £5 a ton preference, whereas today they are being guaranteed a market for 71 per cent. of their production.

Mr. Gammans: Has the hon. Member taken the trouble to find out how strong have been the expressions of public opinion in the West Indies of the negotiations up to now? Does he realise what a very bad effect it will have on Imperial relations if the elected delegation of this Colony comes over to this country and the Government refuse to do anything except entertain them?

Mr. Evans: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Harrison: Will my hon. Friend say, in view of our urgent need for more sugar, how it comes about that he has put a ceiling of 640,000 tons on the West Indian production, whereas in 1948 we were importing no less than 790,000 tons? What is the reason for this considerable reduction in the amount permitted under this agreement from the West Indies?

Mr. Evans: I must point out that we shall not be getting from the Commonwealth, including the West Indies, the tonnage of sugar we should be very happy to take, not even at the end of 1952.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not take the lot?

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that we export quite a considerable amount of sugar from this country in the year, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the result of this new proposal will be that we shall be exporting or re-exporting more sugar than we were before, or shall we give more sugar to the consumers who really want it?

Mr. Evans: We shall certainly hope to export as much. It is very important that we should maintain our export market, but it has to be pointed out that included in this tonnage allowance is 300,000 tons for Canada. We guarantee it, but Canada does not guarantee us that she will take it. There is an element of risk even in the figures which are complained of.

Captain Crookshank: At the end of it all are the people of this country going to have their sugar ration increased? Is it going to remain the same or is it going to be decreased?

Mr. Evans: That is a different question.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious political consequences which might follow from the announcement he has made, and that in the eyes of many people in the West Indies, rightly or wrongly, the good faith of the Government is involved in view of the statement made by the Minister at the end of the negotiations last summer? What action does he propose to take to make sure that our good faith is re-established in the eyes of the population of the West Indies?

Mr. Evans: All fair-minded persons who have any knowledge of this subject are bound to recognise that the Government's proposals are eminently fair.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government are doing to persuade the sugar importing Dominions—he mentioned one, Canada—to give an undertaking to give priority to Empire sugar to stop overproduction in the period ahead?

Mr. Evans: As well as ourselves, Canada gives a very substantial preference.

Mr. Marlowe: Is not the truth of the whole matter that the Government are deliberately limiting the sugar ration,


because an increase in it would involve an extra food subsidy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not allow it.

Mr. Evans: No, that is not true.

Following is the statement:

The Ministry of Food issued the following statement today following the close of consultations with Commonwealth countries on the future sugar policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government was represented at these discussions by officials of the Ministry of Food, Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade and the Treasury:
During the war by 'arrangement with the Canadian, New Zealand and Ceylon Governments and with the Governments of Malaya and other sugar-importing Colonies, the Ministry of Food made itself responsible for procuring the whole of the imported sugar supplies of these countries in addition to providing for the United Kingdom's own needs.
On the 22nd September, 1948, in order to encourage sugar production in Commonwealth countries and help to remedy the sugar shortage in the United Kingdom and in the countries for whose supplies the Ministry of Food was still responsible, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food announced in the House of Commons that the United Kingdom Government guaranteed to find an outlet either in the United Kingdom or in the Commonwealth for the whole exportable surplus of Commonwealth sugar producers until the end of 1952.
Shortly afterwards representatives of the West Indian sugar producers pressed for an extension of this guarantee beyond the end of 1952 and in the summer of last year the United Kingdom Government undertook to enter into discussions with Commonwealth producers in the autumn with a view to making long-term arrangements which would assure them a market beyond 1952 for agreed tonnages of sugar at reasonably remunerative prices to be negotiated with the producers. The United Kingdom Government stated that it was its declared policy to maintain and improve the economy of the Colonial territories and that where, as in the British West Indies, sugar production is the main and indispensable basis of a healthy economy, this would be given special consideration in fixing the quantities of sugar to be covered by these arrangements. Discussions with this end in view have been in progress in London since the 21st November.
The United Kingdom's arrangement with the Canadian Government terminated at the end of 1949 and the Canadian sugar refiners are now free to buy their raw sugar where they can get it most cheaply. Similarly New Zealand, Ceylon and the sugar importing Colonies may when supplies of sugar become

plentiful, wish to purchase their sugar for themselves in their own way and no longer expect the United Kingdom to procure it for them. The only market, therefore, for which the United Kingdom is able to give a guarantee to Commonwealth producers from 1953 onwards is the United Kingdom market.
Accordingly the United Kingdom has offered to Commonwealth producers a five-year contract from 1953, making, with the unexpired portion of the present guarantee, eight years in all. Until 1952 the United Kingdom will continue under the existing guarantee, to find a market for the whole exportable surplus of Commonwealth producers. From 1953 onwards to 1957 the United Kingdom has offered to guarantee a market in the United Kingdom at reasonably remunerative prices fixed annually for a total of 1,550,000 tons, 1,100,000 tons from the Colonies, 300,000 tons from Australia and 150,000 tons from South Africa.
In the light of information as to increased costs submitted by the producers, a price per ton 12 per cent. above the 1949 price has been offered for the 1950 crop, and any reasonable further increases of cost, together with all other relevant factors, will be taken into account in fixing the prices to be paid in future years. The precise basis for fixing these prices is still the subject of negotiation between expert representatives of the producers and the Ministry of Food.
The existing undertaking encourages expansion of Commonwealth sugar production for export without setting a limit, but since the preferential market for Commonwealth sugar is limited, the United Kingdom Government has suggested to Commonwealth producers that, as part of the proposed agreement, they should undertake for the time being not to plan to expand their exportable surpluses beyond a figure of 2,350,000 tons. The Colonies' share of this total is 1,550,000 tons, which compares with their pre-war present, and prospective export figures as follows:



Tons.


Pre-war average (1935–38)
960,000


1949
1,200,000


1952
1,400,000


Hence, under the arrangements proposed by the United Kingdom, the Colonies could lay their plans up till 1957 on the footing that they had an annual export of 1,550,000 tons, or 350,000 tons more than their exports today and 150,000 tons more than their expected exports for 1952. Of this total, 1,100,000 tons would consist of guaranteed sales in the United Kingdom. For the balance above the amount covered by the guarantee, they should find a market either in the United Kingdom or in Canada, since in both these markets the preferential rate of duty gives a considerable advantage to Commonwealth sugar over foreign sugar.
If these arrangements were agreed to and carried out, and assuming that the United Kingdom by 1953 will be able to purchase all the sugar it needs, annual imports from the Colonies into the United Kingdom market would from 1953 onwards be about 100 per cent. more than they were on the average of the years 1935 and 1938. Imports from foreign


countries would fall to less than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total requirements of sugar, or no more than one-third of the pre-war quantity.
The United Kingdom is under an obligation to the United Nations to enter into negotiations when the time is ripe for the framing of a new International Sugar Agreement. Pending such negotiations the United Kingdom Government feels bound to reserve some part of the United Kingdom market uncommitted.
His Majesty's Government realises that its offer does not completely fulfil the desires of some of the producers concerned. There are numerous conflicting interests which it has been impossible to reconcile to the satisfaction of all parties, but the facts stated above show that there is no foundation for the view advanced in some quarters that the offer involves the restriction of Colonial sugar production in order that the United Kingdom may buy a greater proportion of foreign sugar. The figures given in this statement show that exactly the reverse is the case. All that the United Kingdom is doing in the way of limitation is first to place certain limits on the amount of sugar which they are prepared to guarantee to take at a fixed price negotiated each year, and secondly to ask Commonwealth producers for the time being to place certain limits on their expansion programme after 1952.
It would be unreasonable to expect the United Kingdom to undertake for eight years ahead to purchase unlimited quantities of any commodity on the basis of a guaranteed price. The quantities covered can be revised upwards if circumstances permit, but there is no question of revising them downwards during the period of the eight-year agreement. The offer made represents a greater degree of security than the Colonial producers have had at any previous time. Before the war the total exports of the Colonies amounted to 960,000 tons, the whole of which was without guarantee and had to compete in world markets apart from the protection afforded by Commonwealth preference. The Colonies' export today is 1,200,000 tons. By 1952, on present expansion plans, it will be 1,400,000 tons.
If they accept the present offer, the Colonies will be entitled in 1953 and for four years after that to export 1,550,000 tons. Of this total, 1,100,000 tons, representing no less than 71 per cent., will be shipped to the United Kingdom with a price guarantee giving them ample protection against any risk of a collapse in world prices. The balance they will be free to sell to their best advantage in the market and in so doing they will enjoy the full benefit of the Commonwealth preferential rates of duty. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government feels that by this offer it has fully implemented the pledges given in the communique of 10th August.
Australia and South Africa have accepted the offer subject to some reservations which remain to be settled. Replies are awaited from the Colonies.

MOTIONS FOR NEW WRITS (PROCEDURE)

Captain John Crowder: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you have any statement to make on the procedure you propose to adopt when a Member wishes to oppose the issue of a new Writ?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I now desire to make a statement about the situation which arose on 21st March, when a Motion for a new Writ, moved at the beginning of the day's proceedings, was opposed.
Under Standing Order No. 1 the House meets at 2.30 and must first proceed with Private Business. There were, in fact, 10 Private Bills set down for consideration that day. But a Motion for a new Writ is a privileged Motion and as such, under the practice of the House, takes precedence over other business. The result is, as I pointed out on 25th March, 1943, in rather similar circumstances, a conflict between a rule of practice and a Standing Order.
To resolve, this difficulty I have decided that in future, if a Motion for a new Writ, moved immediately after Prayers, is opposed by a Member rising to speak against it, I shall interrupt the proceedings, in which case the Motion could be moved again after Questions, or on Friday, after Private Business. In this way Debate on an opposed new Writ will neither prevent Private Business being considered during its allotted time, nor cut down Question Time, as happened on several occasions in 1943 and 1944.

Captain Crowder: While I am sure that hon. Members are very grateful for your statement, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if that means that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to say "Object" when he wishes to oppose the issue of a new Writ?

Mr. Speaker: I deliberately put into my statement the words:
… if a Motion for a new Writ … is opposed by a Member rising to speak against it.…
That means, of course, that he cannot merely say "Object," and that I must be satisfied that the reason for opposing the Motion is a genuine and not a purely obstructive one.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Captain Waterhouse: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that of 23 Questions addressed to the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council and the Foreign Secretary today only one has been dealt with? I submit that this is depriving Members of the House of their right to question the most important Ministers of State on matters of urgent interest, and I ask you to consider it from that point of view to see if something cannot be done.

Mr. Speaker: The only action I can take—and it would not be very popular—is very severely to curtail supplementary questions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may know that once upon a time we did have extra time for Questions, and that proved a complete failure; so that, obviously, is not the answer. I will do my best but with so many questions and so many supplementaries—there were 118 questions for oral answer today—it is a problem to which I do not see any answer.

Earl Winterton: Would you not consider it desirable, Sir, to approach, through the usual channels, the leaders of the various parties with a view to setting up a committee to inquire into this question? Without reflecting in any way upon you, Mr. Speaker, or on your predecessors, there has been a great variation in the attitude of successive Speakers to this question. You may recollect that in the case of Mr. Speaker Lowther never more than three supplementary questions at the most, and generally not more than two, were allowed. In view of the fact that there has been a great variation in the practice by different Speakers could not a committee be set up to go into the whole question? Even though the responsibility must ultimately rest with yourself or your successor in the Chair, that is no reason why the views of the House should not be ascertained.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be very glad of anything that the House can do to assist me, but to make a rule that only two

supplementaries should be asked would be a little difficult. Think of Question No. 29, which has just been answered. Two supplementaries would not have been enough in that case.

Mr. Eden: Is not this a matter which very often solves itself as a Parliament grows a little older?

Colonel Ropner: Would it not be possible, through the usual channels, for the Prime Minister's Questions, which now come on at No. 45, to come on at No. 35 or earlier?

Mr. Speaker: That, too, is a matter for arrangement. If I may say so, some hon. Members put down Questions which are purely local. There may be some good reason for it, and I cannot object to Questions on that account, but I believe that a good many could be taken off the oral list and put down as non-oral Questions, which, after all, receive an answer just the same.

FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I should like to make a personal statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. During the Foreign Affairs Debate on 28th March, he stated:
The other point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was with regard to Haifa. This matter was not quite so simple as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. This place was allocated to the Arabs under the United Nations resolution. Israel did not accept that point. She proceeded to take it, and Iraq then cut off the oil."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950: Vol. 473, c. 326.]
My right hon. Friend regrets the obvious error. The relevant section of the statement should have read:
This place was allocated to the Jews under the United Nations resolution. The Arabs did not accept this. The Jews proceeded to take it over, and Iraq then cut off the oil.
My right hon. Friend was, of course, well aware of these facts.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME

4.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That

(1) save as provided in paragraph (2) of this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every sitting for the remainder of this Session, and no Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be introduced;
(2) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday, 5th May, Friday, 12th May, Friday, 19th May, Friday, 16th June and Friday, 23rd June; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (3) of this Order; and
(3) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held after Questions on Wednesday, 19th April, Wednesday, 26th April, Wednesday, 3rd May, Wednesday, 24th May and Wednesday, 14th June."

The House will remember that I informed hon. Members on Thursday of the Government's proposals in regard to time this Session for Private Members' business. I believe that the arrangement which I announced found general acceptance in the unusual circumstances of the present Session of Parliament. The motion which I now move is to give effect to the proposals (1) to stop the presentation of Private Members' Bills, and (2) to allocate five Fridays for the consideration of Private Members' Motions. As I intimated to the House earlier, we had the advantage of discussing this matter through the usual channels. I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) for accepting this arrangement. He recognised the difficulties of business this Session which, as we all know, began much later than usual. Having closely examined the programme myself I can tell him that he was not far wrong in suggesting that the difficulties are formidable.
The matter was discussed through the usual channels, when I had the pleasure of meeting the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) and others on that point. We suggest to the House—and there was general agreement as to the way in which we should proceed—that there is no case for presenting Private Members' Bills, either in the ordinary way or under the Ten Minutes Rule, at this late stage and in the circumstances of this Session. The machinery

for the Ballot to decide the precedence of the Motions conforms to the practice of the House, and the arrangements will be made under the direction of Mr. Speaker. The Motion which I am moving provides for Ballots to be held after Questions on certain Wednesdays. Ballots will be held, on 19th April for Motions to be debated on Friday, 5th May, on 26th April for Debates on 12th May, on 3rd May for the 19th May, on 24th May for the 16th June and on 14th June for the 23rd June.
We think that there may be time, at any rate on certain of the Fridays, to debate more than one Motion, but naturally this will depend upon the nature of the first Debate. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would be good enough to arrange for three names to be drawn at each Ballot in case there should be time to take up three Motions. We have spread the dates as far as possible. The separate Ballots will go some way to ensure that the Debates chosen are fresh and topical. I hope that the House will accept this arrangement for this Session. It does not prejudice the House in any way for any other Session. This is the best we can do, and I therefore commend the proposal to the House.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: The Leader of the House was quite right in saying that there had been conversations through the usual channels upon this subject. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on Thursday expressed the agreement of my hon. Friends with the proposal, but he stressed then, as I should like to stress now, and as the right hon. Member fairly explained in his concluding sentences, that this arrangement is agreed to by us, as I think it is put forward by the Government, because of the wholly unusual circumstances of this Session. However long any of us have been in this House we have never before known a Session which did not start till March, and I hope it will be long before we know such another. All will agree that the normal procedure of Private Members' Bills would have been largely futile and that we should have been going through on Friday proposals which could never be


translated into reality. In those circumstances, the device of the Motion is better than that of the Bill.
One other point is specifically raised as an Amendment by one of my hon. Friends. It is germane to the discussion and it relates to the position of the Ten Minutes Rule. We attach a great deal of importance to that procedure as part of the normal procedure for Private Members' Bills. We certainly got the impression from something which the Lord President of the Council said in our discussion last year that he regards the Ten Minutes Rule as otiose and unnecessary in the circumstances. We totally dissent from that view. We believe that in the normal circumstances of Parliament there is something to be gained, and that something in the past has been gained, from the use of that procedure. The question is whether that procedure, useful as we believe it to be in the normal Session, still retains its utility in a Session as abnormal as this one.
Frankly, in our consideration of this matter we felt that it did not, and that the Ten Minutes Rule, although it has its own particular machinery, is, and must be, if it is to be effective, part of the general proposals for the Private Members' Bill procedure. The chance of a Bill introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule ever becoming law depended largely in the past upon the other opportunities provided by the Fridays; and even more does it do so now, when the procedure normal in those times of trying to obtain a Bill if Government business ended early one night is now impossible, because immediately after the disposal of Government business we go straight on to the Motion for the Adjournment.
I, therefore, ask my hon. Friends, while fully sympathising with them in the importance of the procedure and in a determination if next Session is a normal one, to press this matter upon the Government, to consider whether it would be logical or possible while abandoning the more valuable part of the Private Members procedure to try to retain this part, which is only ancillary to it. I quite realise the importance attached to the publicity for ideas which may be given, yet I have a feeling that that

publicity is only granted by Parliament because it might become an integral part of our law-making. It was not given as something separate but as something which might result in the passage of a Private Members' Bill. If, in the circumstances in which we meet today, that hope has become impossible, it would to some extent vitiate the proposal.
I would therefore conclude by saying with regard to the Ten Minutes Rule, that if we do not press it this time, it is on exactly the same grounds as those on which we accept the main Motion, which is that the situation is abnormal. We do not in any way derogate from our right to raise the matter again when the next Session starts.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, in paragraph (1) after "Government Bills," to insert:
or Bills introduced under the provisions of S.O. No. 12.
For the convenience of the House it might be desirable for me to read out Standing Order No. 12. It is:
On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and, if given by a minister of the crown, on Mondays and Thursdays, notices of motion for leave to bring in bills, and for the nomination of select committees, may be set down for consideration at the commencement of public business. If such motions be opposed, Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the member who moves and from the member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put either the question thereon, or the question, that the debate be now adjourned.
The object of the Amendment is, as my right hon. Friend said, to reinstate a privilege which Private Members had in days before the war. It is not by any means a new move on our part to get these old privileges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rights."]—I agree, former rights of Private Members reinstated. These rights were given up voluntarily during the war, and it was quite understandable that that should be so in those times, but now that the war has ended many of us on this side of the House, and I believe on the other side also, feel that we should have these rights given back to us.
The first attempt was made in 1944 when Sir Alan Herbert, seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who is now the hon. Member for


Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), moved an Amendment to the Motion of the Lord President in an endeavour to get the privileges and rights of Private Members given back to them. Who supported the Amendment at that time? It was moved by an Independant and seconded by a Conservative. It was supported by the present Minister of Health and also by the present Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. It was also supported by nearly all the Liberals.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many of them.

Mr. Taylor: I think by all the Liberals. We hope we shall get the same sort of support today. In 1944 the war was still on. In 1945, after peace had come, there was a new Government which resisted the demands to reinstate Private Members' time but with less reason, and in 1945 also a Select Committee consisting of Members of all parties was set up to consider the reintroduction of Private Members' time. I want to quote another Minister. In 1945 the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), now the Minister of Works, said:
We who may be regarded as rebellious back-benchers should make it clear to our own Front Bench that we do not propose to tolerate a second Motion of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) interjected, "You will." The right hon. Member for Ipswich said:
My hon. Friend ought to know me better than to think that I say what I do not mean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 146.]
A similar Debate took place a year later in November, 1946, and the right hon. Member for Ipswich then said:
I am agreeable to continue my tolerance for another year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 107.]
In the same year the Select Committee reported, and in their recommendations they said:
The great merit of Private Members' time is that it provides opportunities for raising subjects and introducing Bills for which for one reason or another neither the Government nor the Opposition is willing to find facilities out of its own share of time. Consequently, so long as Private Members' time is in abeyance, it will be impossible to raise subjects and introduce Bills which may have considerable support in the House and in the country. Your Committee recommend that facilities for Members to initiate Business should be restored as soon as possible, and that, in any case, the provisions of Standing Order No. 10"—

that was the present Standing Order No. 12—
which enables Members to bring in Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, should be made available again.
That was a definite recommendation in 1946 by a committee of all parties. Nothing happened by 1947, and when the Debate on the same subject took place in 1947 I am glad to say that the right hon. Member for Ipswich voted against his own Government, so his tolerance had reached an end.
In 1948 the Lord President of the Council rather tried to buy off the protagonists for Private Members' time. He made some concessions and said that the Government were proposing to allow Private Members' Bills on Fridays after Christmas in 1948—that is, in the session of 1949—but now in 1950 the Government tell us that we are not to have Private Members' Bills any longer but that Private Members' Motions will be allowed to take the place of Private Members' Bills on Fridays. What the Government are giving away with one hand they are taking back with the other.
I tried to find the fate of one or two Bills introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. I found that the right hon. Memmen for West Lothian (Mr. Mathers), who was Deputy Chief Whip from 1945 to 1946, was interested in introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule because he asked permission to introduce a Bill to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921. I believe that in those days, Mr. Speaker, when you were a Private Member, that Bill had your support and that you were one of its backers. The Bill received its first Reading without a Division. In the same year the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) asked permission to introduce a Bill to abolish the power of courts of summary jurisdiction to order a child to be whipped, but that Bill did not receive a First Reading and was turned down by this House. In 1937 the late Mr. Macquisten asked leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of dyes and colouring matter in the preparation of herring, haddock and other sea fish. I am glad to say that this Bill received a First Reading, and I for one wish that it were on the Statute Book today.

Mr. Messer: Perhaps there would then not be so many red herrings today.

Mr. Taylor: Maybe, but at any rate the herrings would be properly cured and eatable unlike the dyed kippers of today. I think I have shown that this privilege, which was a highly valued one in the days before the war, was a valuable one at the same time. It takes up very little time after Questions. The hon. Member introducing the Bill speaks, and so does another Member if he wishes to speak in opposition to it, and there may then be a Division. Including the time for a Division, the Business will take half an hour at the most and probably not more than 20 to 25 minutes, and that would only take place on two days in the week, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is there anything in the Standing Order to limit the number of Bills which may be moved under this Rule on any one day?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that Mr. Speaker would be able to answer that question better than I. but as far as I know, Standing Order No. 12 does not limit the number of Bills which can be introduced on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Mr. Silverman: Then nobody can guarantee that the time lost would not be more than half an hour?

Mr. Taylor: I believe that on one occasion before the war Mr. Speaker was asked this Question when an hon. Member put down three Bills for presentation, and the hon. Member in that case merely introduced the Bills formally and they went through "on the nod." This proposal of mine is just one small concession which might be given to us to reestablish and restore the rights which we had in previous times.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think that the usual channels, as they are usually called, are the right people to settle this issue, because very few of those therein concerned have had any personal experience of introducing Private Members' Bills. I think that the Lord President of the Council once introduced a Bill, which I believe I

opposed, but I do not think that any of the others ever conducted a Private Member's Bill through the House and therefore, perhaps, they are not as familiar with these things as some of us are.
On Thursday last when I raised the rather wider question than that contained in the Amendment—the right to introduce a Bill under what is popularly known as the Ten Minutes Rule—I had in mind the much more important right of Members to present a Bill. I think I pointed out to the Lord President that some Bills had in the past gone through without any Debate at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a bit of "smart Aleck" stuff—

Mr. H. Morrison: Oh!

Sir H. Williams: That is what it sounded like—about the question of this place being a sausage machine. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to look things up, he will find that many Bills in respect of which there was no controversy have become law without Debate in this House. There is no reason why they should not do so.
I should like to remind the Lord President of the Bill in which I and the present Home Secretary, whose name appeared on the Bill, were concerned. Owing to the bad arithmetic of a Socialist municipality in 1935, a gentleman was very annoyed because he was being charged 10 times as much as usual for his electricity. As he would not pay, the East Ham Corporation cut off his supply. A legal gentleman who was instructed on his behalf went to the High Court to secure an injunction against the corporation. It was then found that all their meters were illegal, and the aggrieved gentleman won. The case produced the interesting situation that no electricity company or municipal authority, outside the Courts of London, was legally in a position to demand payment for the electricity which they had supplied to their consumers. At that time I was mixed up with electricity supply, as was the Home Secretary.
All this happened during the election of 1935, but I did not know about it until after the election. I at once suggested to the Electricity Commission that I should deal with the problem by a Private Member's Bill This rather shocked the Commission. However, I got my way,


the Bill was introduced and I negotiated support from all the political parties. I presented the Bill and got the Second Reading on the nod at 11 o'Clock on 25th February, 1936, no words being spoken. I got the Committee Stage and Third Reading on the nod on 12th March, 1936. It was discovered that a few drafting Amendments were necessary and we negotiated that they should be dealt with in another place. Those four Amendments came back to us and were taken in two minutes at 11 o'clock on the night of 27th May. The Royal Assent was given on 29th May, 1936. I mention that Bill because I happen to have been concerned in it.
I could mention others which I conducted through this House which were also slightly amended in the House of Lords. All this indicates that it is not necessary to take a lot of time over a Bill. Why should hon. Members not be permitted to present a Bill and to name the date for its Second Reading, which would be an atuhority for it to be printed? When it is printed the public are given the opportunity of understanding and appreciating the proposal contained in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley), was in error because, as I have indicated, it has frequently happened that Bills have gone through every stage in this House without a word being spoken upon them; and sometimes they have been Bills of the highest importance. I could mention the Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Act, 1932, which was of enormous convenience to all people engaged or connected with transfers of property. Prior to that Act when property was purchased, payment had to be in cash in exchange for documents, for a banker's draft could not be accepted because it was not a protected instrument and was not, in fact, a cheque. I got all that altered. The Bill was conducted through all its phases in this House and drafting Amendments were dealt with in the House of Lords.
These Bills which I have mentioned are only two from my own experience. Had I the time to study HANSARD and extract a list of Bills which have been passed, I have not the slightest doubt from my own recollection that I should find plenty of other useful Bills which have become law. At the moment, however, the usual

channels are completely blocked at both ends and, if I may say so, I want to take out the plug.
I see no reason why Private Members should not retain the right which they have always had of presenting proposals to Parliament. It is no good to divide on the Amendment, as both Front Benches would be against us. I realise it is usually useful to have these Debates on Motions, as sometimes they become the basis of very important legislation.
I do not know why hon. Members should be debarred from the right of presenting a Bill and having it printed automatically by the procedure of going to the Public Bill Office, and supplying the text, so that in due course it is circulated, and so great public advantage arises. But this is now being denied to us. I think that that is absolutely wrong and I second the Motion of my hon. Friend as a protest against what is being done today.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope that the House will not think it necessary to discuss this matter at length in view of the other Business that is to come. I have listened with great care to the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). My own personal view on the merits of the case is that it is not strong. I remember—

Earl Winterton: May I interrupt? It is a perfectly friendly interruption. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, what is the position of those who wish to support the Motion? As a matter of fact, I am going to support the Government, and I hope that those who wish to speak on the main question will not be precluded from doing so. We are concerned at the moment only with the Amendment. I am sure that the Lord President will, if necessary—I know how courteous he is—reply to the points we may make concerning the main question, which, I think, is far more important, if I may say so with all due deference, than the point which has been put by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I want to make it quite clear that some of us are anxious to speak on the main Question, and I hope that we shall have an answer from the Government.

Mr. Morrison: If I or another of my right hon. Friends is in order, and points of substance emerge—

Earl Winterton: Of course they are points of substance.

Mr. Morrison: I thought this was a friendly interruption.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry, but this is a question which affects the interests of the House. I asked courteously whether we may have a reply to our points on the main Question, which is more important, I think, than the Amendment and I think we are entitled to ask that in the most courteous way. If I have done anything wrong in asking the Government, I apologise.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Is it not true that the issue raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) is a very limited issue? It is simply a question of whether the Ten Minutes Rule shall be restored or not. There are far more issues involved in the Motion than that very narrow issue, and with them we propose, with your permission Mr. Speaker, to deal.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know what all the excitement is about. The noble Lord was perfectly courteous in his original intervention and I was proceeding to be perfectly courteous myself, whereupon I seem to have said something wrong. If I did, I am sorry. I had no intention to do so, but I still do not know what the semi-indignation is about.
I would only make the point that there is this difference between now and prewar days. It is the case that the House used to have the time of the Adjournment at 11 o'clock. It is also true that the House met at 2.45 instead of at 2.30, but there was a net longer working day normally of three-quarters of an hour, which makes a difference. The other difference is that we have, I thought, in deference to the general wish of the House, so to speak guaranteed and underwritten the half-hour Adjournment discussion at the end of our Debates at the end of the day. Therefore, the old practice, whereby Private Members' Bills could come on and take their chance of getting through unopposed after a few interchanges of a polite character usually

took place, sometimes encroached upon the Adjournment half hour, which we have now guaranteed.

Earl Winterton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morrison: Excuse me, they did encroach on the half hour because then the half hour was not guaranteed. When 11.30 was the Rule, the House stood adjourned automatically. We have now guaranteed that half hour, so that if the half hour did not begin until 11.15, it would have gone on in those circumstances until 11.45.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: But the Bills at 11 o'clock were only read out. They were unopposed at that stage. They did not take more than a minute.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that under the new procedure the Bills cannot even be put forward to be objected to? We have to go straight from Government business to the Adjournment, and therefore the kind of opportunity about which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was talking has now ceased to exist.

Mr. Morrison: That is so, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I used to be here in those days and I agree that it did not take a terribly long time, but the pleadings of hon. Members to let their Bills survive, together with objections, and so on, took some little time from the House. It must be faced that there was 10 minutes for the mover, 10 minutes for the opposer—it is within the discretion of Mr. Speaker, but that is the normal allowance—and approximately 10 minutes for a Division. That is half an hour gone out of the Debate for the day. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is right, I gather that under the Standing Order that is all that can be given. How Mr. Speaker will rule is another matter but normally there was not more than one Bill.
It is perfectly true that Bills varied in their fortunes. I should think that most of them made no progress whatever. There was a lot of printing done, a lot of work done, but quite a number of them were slaughtered on the spot. I brought in an excellent Bill for the rating of land values in the County of London to assist the ratepayers. What happened?


The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) made one of his typical and characteristic speeches—

Sir H. Williams: A very good one.

Mr. Morrison: I did not think it was. The Conservative majority of the House at that time promptly voted my Bill down, and all my labours went for nothing except—I admit this—that I had used the authorities of the House and the Consolidated Fund to achieve a purely propagandist purpose on behalf of the London County Council which could have afforded to pay for it itself. That is the only advantage I had. It is no good telling me that the advantages and prospects of getting Bills through under that procedure are great, because I do not think they are.

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Mr. Morrison: Here is the murderer of my excellent Bill.

Sir H. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman had been sufficiently bright to present his Bill, he could have had it printed, but because he wanted to advertise himself, he did not get it printed. That is where he was slow.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Somehow or other, I had that Bill printed—

Sir T. Moore: At the expense of the London County Council?

Mr. Morrison: No, I think it was at the expense of the House. We will look up the records, but that is my clear recollection. Honestly, I think there is an element of over-estimation about the advantages of this procedure. As the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) has indicated, whether I am right or whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Croydon, East are right, we have to face the special circumstances on this Session, and we are not really dealing with circumstances beyond that.

Mr. Blackburn: That is the one argument which appears to me to be utterly invalid. Obviously, if a Bill is a good one and is given publicity, it may well be taken up by the Labour Government when it is returned after the next General Election

or, alternatively, by a Conservative Government. Surely it can make little difference which Government is in power?

Mr. Morrison: I was not thinking about that, and if my hon. Friend has any bright ideas for legislation, he knows that the Labour Government are always short of legislation.

Mr. Stanley: The Labour Party are short of bright ideas, not of legislation.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) will transmit his propositions to the appropriate Minister, he can be sure that we shall take them into account. In the circumstances of the present Session it is perfectly clear that Ten Minutes Rule Bills could not make progress. There is no prospect of getting them through, and in those circumstances, I hope either that the hon. Members will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, or that the House will think it wise to negative the proposal.

Sir T. Moore: I take it that we are now on the main subject again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Major Milner): An Amendment has been moved and, when that has been disposed of, the House will return to the main Question.

Sir T. Moore: We are on the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, and attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a second Amendment which will be called.

Sir T. Moore: May I be quite clear on this point? I had hoped, like my noble Friend, to speak on the main Question. As we are still on the Amendment until it has been disposed of or withdrawn, I would like to reserve my right to speak later.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I shall address my remarks to the Amendment and support all that has been said by my two hon. Friends below the Gangway. I believe in the Ten Minutes Rule. I believe that it is a useful and practical way of getting through this House legislation to which the Government cannot give time and attention. As I have some practical experience of it, it may be worth while if I tell the


House of my own experience. In 1936 I sponsored and got through the House an Act called the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act. My Bill was quite different from that of the Lord President of the Council. He used the opportunity for controversial purposes; I chose the more constructive way of trying to get through an agreed Bill.
The circumstances of it were as follows. Some time in June, 1936—the time factor is of importantce—as a representative of a health resort I went to the Ministry of Health with a deputation from the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts asking that the Ministry should introduce in the House a Bill to give certain advertising powers to the health resorts. We were told by the officials at the Ministry that they had great sympathy with this, but unfortunately their hands were so full and the Government were so busy with their own legislative programme that nothing could be done.
We went away rather disappointed, but I talked the matter over with my friends and went back to the Ministry. I asked them, "Were you telling the truth when you said to that deputation that the only reason for your not introducing the Bill was that the hands of the Ministry were already too full?" They said "Yes, that is so." I said, "I am proposing to help you out of your difficulties by introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. Here is a copy of the Bill I wish to introduce." Of course, the Ministry of Health were at once interested, and before I knew where we were they asked me to let their Parliamentary draftsmen have a look at the Bill. It came back with certain amendments and a note saying that the Ministry of Health quite approved of what I was doing and it would have their blessing.
Thereupon, I had the problem of getting it through the House of Commons. I knew it would have to go through as an unopposed Bill. I was careful in choosing my sponsors. I asked a number of hon. Members on my side of the House, including the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), and then I had to bring in the other great parties. I went to the Liberal Party and at that time the spokesman who commanded their attention, although perhaps he does not do so now, was the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), and he

backed my Bill. I felt I had to have the agreement of the Labour Party and I asked the present Home Secretary, who gladly lent his name and backed the Bill. I had a few words with the Independent Labour Party and the Communist Member, and felt that I had the goodwill of the House.
As late as 30th June of that year, I asked leave to introduce the Bill. I rose at 3.50 and made my speech and it was unanimously agreed that I had leave to introduce it. So little time was taken by my efforts that at 3.56 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rising to move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. There was no waste of Parliamentary time there. I had to follow the procedure outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), and I got it through "on the nod." At first, there were a number of objections, but I saw all the objectors and explained the Bill to them and explained to the various party Whips. On 6th July I had it through on the nod, and on 9th July all the remaining stages of the Bill were completed, and it went from this House as an unopposed Bill. It went to another place—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but he is rather getting away from the subject matter before us.

Mr. Robinson: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but the Lord President of the Council said that it would take too much Parliamentary time to do these things. Surely it is our right to reply and to say that, from the facts of the past, we who have handled this procedure know that it does not take too much time. I do not propose to detain the House with the procedure in another place. There were discussions and Amendments, and the Lords Amendments came back to this House and I was able to get the Bill through again "on the nod "on 28th July. I had the privilege of going over to the other place on 31st July to hear the Royal Assent given.
That Bill was initiated in this House on 30th June and received the Royal Assent on 31st July. I think that is of interest because the same could be done still in this Parliament. Whatever the Lord President of the Council says, it is


not too late and we have a chance, if only he will allow us, to introduce and get through very useful reforms by way of non-controversial legislation. For that reason, I support my hon. Friends who have moved this Amendment. Other hon. Members could do in this Session what has been done in the past.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that this is essentially a question for back benchers, and I do not think back benchers on either side of the House need be particularly concerned by what has been said from the Front Benches on either side. Whenever we have had a Debate in this House on the question of Private Members' time, the views of back benchers have been expressed and listened to, and in time they have made themselves felt in subsequent recommendations of the Government.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure which met in the last Parliament. A great deal of evidence was tendered to that Committee about the experience of hon. Members in earlier Parliaments and the considerable benefits of this procedure of allowing hon. Members to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. That procedure was suspended during the last Parliament, and I think that was regarded as valid on both sides of the House; but the view was expressed that this Ten Minutes Rule procedure was a very desirable part of the normal procedure of the House. I think we should regard it as one of the permanent Rules of the House.
The only question which arises today is whether, in the special circumstances of this Session, it would be desirable for Private Members to insist on this traditional right of the House, or not. I am not convinced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), or the hon. Member for Croydon, East, that it is really necessary for the protection of the rights of back benchers that the particular privilege of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule is necessary or desirable in this Session. The whole timetable of this Session is wholly unusual and wholly anomalous. Therefore, I do not think that the House, by agreeing to the Government Motion, would be denying

back benchers one of the rights which I, like hon. Members opposite, regard as an essential part of our normal Parliamentary procedure.
I agree with the Lord President of the Council. The allocation of time to Private Members in the preservation of the half hour at the end of Government Business is, on the whole, the most valuable allocation of time to Private Members which can be made available. If one had to choose between the two, I think any Private Member would say that that half-hour's Adjournment, in the circumstances of this Session, is more valuable to back benchers than the right to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. There are only three or four months available before the end of this Session, and there is no prospect of legislation introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule becoming effective before the end of the Session.
Therefore, while I do not support the Amendment, I wish to make it clear that I very much hope that in any subsequent Session—that is to say any normal Session—there will be a restoration of the right of Members to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think it absolutely essential that Private Members should preserve the right to initiate legislation. Under the Ten Minutes Rule, unless it is abused, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—I do not think many of us would do that, and I am sure he would not—the small concession which this Amendment would give would do no harm to the Government of the day. We are going on from Parliament to Parliament regularly taking away from Private Members power to initiate legislation. I am not particularly enamoured of the form of legislation of the Ten Minutes Rule—I have seen some bad Bills go through under it, as well as some good Bills—but, if we go on through too many Parliaments taking away the rights of Private Members, sooner or later they will lose those rights entirely. That is a definite and very real danger.
Why should the concession of so small amount of time as half-an-hour be so strenuously resisted by the Government?


I should think that if they could find something by which they could have a Division where they need not be responsible, or have the Whips on, they would be glad to make such a concession. It would relieve them of anxiety and would enable many new Members, or comparatively new Members, to take some part in legislating. While I am not asking for the full amount of Private Members' time, I think it almost inexcusable in a matter which takes so little time, in a Parliament in which there should be obviously time for such Bills, to continue the infringement on Private Members' time. I ask the Government, in their own interests, I believe, and in the wider interests of the House, to make this small concession, even if they are not going to make a bigger one later.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I hope that I shall be forgiven for speaking for a few minutes because this is a back benchers' point and I do not think that back benchers should surrender the right to consider the matter carefully and express their view. I agree on the whole with the point which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). It seems to me that the right to formulate legislation and have attention attracted to it is valuable to the Private Member. I entirely disagree with the point made in that respect by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley), because so far as I can see, it will make no difference whether we have that right this Session or next Session. In either event, if the Private Member puts down a Bill it will be considered and it might be taken up in the next Session or by the next Government or by the Government after that. In any event the right—[Interruption.]—the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman were that it might become an integral part of subsequent legislation.

Mr. Stanley: I said that now that the procedure has been altered so that one cannot get a Bill "on the nod," there is little hope for a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule unless at the same time we have Private Members' days on Friday, because that is the only opportunity for those Bills to make further progress.

Mr. Blackburn: While the right hon. Gentleman did not use those words—they would have been correct had he used them—the whole point is surely that if a Bill is put down by a Private Member, it may become an integral part of subsequent legislation.

Mr. Stanley: I was not suggesting that it might afterwards be taken up by the Government; but that if there were other opportunities for Private Members' legislation there was a chance of getting through its remaining stages a Bill which had been given a Second Reading under the Ten Minutes Rule. When there are no other opportunities, there is really no possibility of legislation introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule being pushed any further.

Mr. Blackburn: I appreciate that, but if a Private Member has the right to present a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule he can have attention drawn to it and it may be subsequently passed.
The real point to be considered here is the re-allocation of Private Members' time, as the Private Member will lose in general Debate the amount of time taken up by Bills brought in under the Ten Minutes Rule. I wish only to ask my right hon. Friend to consider between now and next Session whether we are absolutely bound by the existing Ten Minutes Rule procedure. Might not a Member have the right to introduce a Bill by a procedure which would occupy only 10 minutes in all. It seems to me that 10 minutes will be quite enough. The other day a petition was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman), who in doing so said a few words. It seemed to me a pity that he had not the right to speak for another five or 10 minutes. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not consider between now and next Session, whether any amendment of the form—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot discuss anything beyond what is contained in the Amendment. He is now asking for some extension of the Amendment. That is not in Order.

Mr. Blackburn: Then I merely say that I entirely agree with the course that the Government are taking, on the understanding that the matter will be reconsidered.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Though I am far from being satisfied with the reply of the Lord President of the Council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the assurance that it will be reconsidered very favourably for next Session.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, in paragraph (3), to leave out "after Questions."
It might be for the convenience of the House if I spoke at the same time on this Amendment and the next Amendment in my name—in paragraph (3), at the end, to add:
under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker; and
(4) Members successful in each ballot shall not give oral notice of the subject of their Motion but shall give written notice before the rising of the House on the Sitting day next following the day upon which the ballot has been held.
When Private Members' Motions were last allowed, that is before the war, the practice, which will no doubt continue in the absence of my Amendment, was that when Mr. Speaker announced the winners of the Ballot they were required to state there and then the subjects of their Motions. That procedure involved a waste of mental effort. Three or four hundred Members had to think out in advance the subject which, if successful, they would choose for Debate, but only two or three of them ever had a chance to translate thought into action. On the other hand, if there was no thought beforehand, and the winner selected his subject on the spur of the moment, that subject might be not a very good one for Debate. It is on record that one Member who was caught unprepared got up and said, "Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to the weather, and move a Resolution."
If my Amendment is accepted there will be no need for any hon. Member to begin thinking about the matter until he has won the Ballot. He will then have until the following day to choose a subject and draft a Motion. I have discussed this matter with a number of Private Members, all of whom agree with me. One of them asked, however: "What happens if the winners of the first, second and third place, or two of them, choose the same subject?" I am

sure that that difficulty would be easily resolved. The winner of the first place would naturally have priority, and the winner of the second place would, before putting his Motion down, ask the winner of the first place what his subject was, and I am sure he would receive an answer. I hope that my Amendment will commend itself to the House. I believe that it would make for better Debates.

Captain John Crowder: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel it would be better if Members had a little longer time to choose their subjects and draft the wording instead of having to read it out to the House immediately after Questions on the day of the Ballot.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am bound to say that at first sight this Amendment somewhat attracted me because I could see the case for it as it has been put by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). It is one of those matters which can no doubt be considered from time to time, but the more I have thought about it the less convinced I have become, because the whole argument behind the initiative of Private Members is that it really shall be the individual initiative of Private Members. If there is to be this suggested pause it is perfectly true that the Private Member will have time to think about the matter; but he will have had time to think about it before dropping his name into the box, or whatever is the procedure, and indeed he should have done so.
During the 24 hours' delay which the hon. Member desires, hon. Members might have descending on them numerous ladies and gentlemen representing good causes outside the House, various voluntary societies and also people with grievances. Would hon. Members have a happy 24 hours while all this lobbying and pressure group activity was going on in favour of the many good causes that exist in the world? I am not sure that they would not sooner be protected from it.
Surely the whole spirit and essence of this Private Members' Motions procedure is that Members of Parliament are always thinking about subjects which they would like to have debated in this House. After all, we are not exactly short of subjects, as indicated by those put to me on Thurs


day afternoons after the Business statement. Hon. Gentlemen who are Members of Parliament, responsible public people, are not short of subjects which they would like the House to Debate at some time. Secondly, we must assume that when the hon. Members sign the book—that is right, I think; it is a book which is signed and not the dropping of something into a slot; one tends to forget—they would have thought to themselves, "Supposing I win, I will do this." An hon. Member may perhaps have three subjects—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Should not this procedure be similar to the procedure now adopted for Adjournment Motions? Hon. Members should not put down their names at all unless they really want to occupy the time of the House with something useful, or if they have an urgent problem. It should not be like the Ballot nowadays for Motions on Supply Days where perhaps a hundred hon. Members put down their names. Surely, the whole object of this procedure is to give hon. Members the opportunity to ballot for an opportunity of saying something which they particularly think ought to be said?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that my hon. Friend has made a very good point. If hon. Members are not keen about bringing forward some problem, or if they have nothing very important to say, it would be better if they did not put down their names; because by so doing they will be entering into competition with hon. Members who have something important to bring to the notice of the House. That is one point. The other point is—

Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend deal with the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale)? Could not the same procedure be adopted as that which is followed in the case of the Adjournment book and the subject put down in the book? Then every Member could see it and perhaps ballot for the same subject.

Mr. Morrison: That is a point which is not actually involved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged, Sir. Broadly speaking, I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, the only thing an hon. Member has to do when his name is drawn is to state that he will call attention to a certain subject and move a Motion on it. He has not to state the terms of the Motion. The procedure is much the same as the Motion in relation to Mr. Speaker going out of the Chair.
Perhaps this is my personal prejudice,. but I like the drama of the Clerks at the Table, under the direction of Mr. Speaker, drawing out these numbers, and when the number is announced the hon. Member having to give notice straight away as to what he proposes to do. I like that. There is a good Parliamentary and healthy and spontaneous flavour about it; even though the hon. Member may have received a little assistance from certain quarters. But I like it, and I think it would be a pity if the names were announced, the House went away, the hon. Member gave notice and it appeared in a dull way on the Order Paper the next day.
It has been an ancient Parliamentary practice that the hon. Member should get up straight away and say that he is calling attention to so-and-so, and we have a Motion. I think it is one of the charming touches of Parliamentary procedure and I should be sorry to see it go. Therefore, although in the first place I was somewhat attracted by the proposal of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the more I thought about it, the less keen I was about it; and I hope that in this case also he will not press the Amendment to a Division.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The dramatic sense of the Lord President seemed to like this Ballot after Questions but not to like the introduction of Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. I hope that on reconsideration he will take the same attitude to both. This is an expensive way of taking up Parliamentary time. It will take some five or ten minutes on eight different occasions, and as the Lord President says that he has so very short a time, I hope he will reconsider his attitude.
I am impressed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. L. Hale) about having too many people balloting,


and the Lord President agreed with him. If we do not want too many people balloting, and if we are to get into the same situation as that which exists in regard to the Ballot for Motions on the Adjournment, surely it is much better to have a ballot upstairs, or as Mr. Speaker lays down, rather than have it on the Floor of the House where we would have some 600 people balloting—many of whom do not wish to raise any subject at all. In view of the support which I think this Amendment will receive among hon. Members opposite I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter and redraft the Motion so that Mr. Speaker can lay down the method that the House will adopt for this purpose.

Mr. Keeling: On the understanding that the matter will be reconsidered next year as the right hon. Gentleman has stated—although I do not know whether he will be at that Box then—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

5.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I apologise to the House for reminding them that I have been fortunate enough during my period in this House to get eight Bills through to the Statute Book. I advance that only as a justification for making any comment at all this afternoon on this Motion. I agree with what was said last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and which has been reinforced today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley). Under the present circumstances it is not feasible to go further than the Government have undertaken to do in regard to the five days for Motions. I would not press the matter further, except that I feel there are a number of new Members in this House who do not quite understand what the various procedures envisage and lead to, and what they involve.
I am encouraged in that view by a word used last year by the Prime Minister when we were discussing this matter. He referred to the "concession" which the Government was about to give to the House. Oddly enough, that term was repeated by that old Parliamentary colleague of mine, the hon. Member for

Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). There is no question of a "concession" in this matter. The Executive have no rights in regard to giving or to denying Private Members' time to Private Members. Provided they have a majority behind them the Executive have power to force their way through the House of Commons. But they have no rights, and of course majorities are rather unpredictable features for the present Government. Therefore I cannot see that we can tolerate the use of this word "concession" any further in this Debate.
What have the Government asked Parliament to give them? They have asked for all Private Members' time, except for five Fridays after Easter, when Motions may be discussed. That means that instead of having all day Wednesday for Motions and all day Friday for Private Members' Bills, as limited by Standing Orders, we are to get just these five Fridays for Motions. I admit that that is a valuable and useful—not "concession"—but a valuable and useful time for Private Members; although I still think that there are advantages about Private Members' Bills which the Government themselves should be the first to acknowledge.
For one thing, quite apart from the many useful Acts of Parliament that we have on the Statute Book as the result of Private Members' Bills, they do give young and new hon. Members a sense of importance; a sense of interest and a sense of playing their part in the affairs of the House of Commons. They also give such hon. Members an interest in the day-to-day working of Parliament. They teach Private Members the very essence of Government and how to carry on with a project about which they feel deeply without being assisted by hordes of civil servants with the background of a Government Department. That is a tremendous experience and education for a back bench Member of Parliament.
Secondly, it gives to the Government of the day an opportunity of judging the calibre of young and new Members to see whether they would make useful Under-Secretaries, or even useful Ministers. As a matter of fact, there is one hon. Member sitting on the Government Front Bench who worked his way there solely by means of a Hairdressers Bill in the last Parliament. Unfortunately we are


denied the pleasure any more of having our hair cut by the hon. Gentleman, because he is now an attractive figure as a Whip on the Government Front Bench.
There are two other points I wish to mention. This procedure gives the public an opportunity of getting matters which the public conceive to be of importance thrashed out in this House and in Committee. Some of these matters concern questions which many Governments are unwilling to handle. That is a most valuable right for the public to possess. Furthermore, these Private Members' Bills are a perfect godsend to those who otherwise might not be lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in ordinary Debate. One hon. and learned Member opposite had the time of his life in the last Parliament and he is, happily, still with us. No doubt when Private Members' Bills are reintroduced the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will once again enjoy the privileges afforded to him. It would be a bad day for the back benchers who make up Parliament if they gave way to the Executive on this subject. That would lead to the very dictatorship which Parliament was set up to abolish.
For these reasons, we should not allow this Debate to pass without securing some definite promise from the Government. I admit that there are difficulties this year, but we should secure a promise that at the first convenient opportunity Parliament will have restored to it its rights, under any method—either by Motions, Private Members' Bills, the Ten Minutes Rule or other means that may arise. I hope that the Lord President of the Council, who has shown the conciliatory attitude which we have now come to expect from him, will give an undertaking of that kind.

5.12 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I will be most careful after what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) to use the word "right." Having established the right of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself to have a reply, I assure the Lord President of the Council that I do not ask him to reply to the points which I shall put to him. In fact, I have almost to apologise for speaking again on this matter, because I speak on it in every Session. I

have had a very long personal history, even when my own party has been in power, of opposition to some of the proposals which have been made by Leaders of the House which truncated Private Members' time. I wish to repeat one or two points because they are important. They are very much on the lines of what was said so admirably by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr.
First, undoubtedly, even since the 1918 war the rights of Private Members have narrowed down from precedent to precedent. Indeed, in fairness to the Governments which have held office since that war, it should be said that the process started earlier. In Parliament after Parliament something has been taken away from what was originally the right of Private Members. It would be out of Order to go into the matter of the serious grievance we had in the early days of the last Parliament when a Government with an enormous majority were obviously going to be in power for five years. For the first three years of that Parliament that Government continued the war-time practice. We protested most strenuously, and it is only fair to say that we were supported by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) actually voted against the Government.
I ought to say in parenthesis that the respectful admonitions which I intend to present would be addressed by me if my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House were the Government. In fact, if, as I hope, in about a year's time I am still alive and occupying the front seat below the Gangway normally occupied by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I shall keep a fatherly eye upon my right hon. Friends who will form the Government. If they do not act up to the spirit of what I believe to be the wishes of the House in the matter of Private Members' rights—and I emphasise the word "rights"—I shall certainly have something to say.
I agree that the proposals in this Motion can be accepted. Once again, I want to reiterate what has been said so often in these Debates from both sides of the House in a far more effective way than I can say it. It is that this is the Commons House of Parliament and the Members of this House represent the


common people. I do not intend any party reference when I say that a Member of Parliament who is not in office, a back bencher who has no desire to be in office, has a perfect right to a fair opportunity to put his case. One of the peculiarities which, perhaps, distinguishes this House from other legislative assemblies is that there are a lot of people who are here purely because they think it their duty. They are not, so to speak, potential knights, baronets, members of another place or of the National Boards, or Members of the Government. They have no desire to be anything like that: they are merely here as Members of Parliament, and they have a perfect right to be allowed time in which to put their views.
That is all the more necessary because Government time is much more regularised and systematised than it was when I first became a Member of this House. In those days, there was no particular choice of speakers in advance. I know that I am on delicate ground, but I think I can say that in those days the extent to which suggestions were made to the Chair that such a person should be called was not so great. What I am about to relate never did any harm to the Opposition. It happened when the Liberal Party were in Opposition in the Parliament of 1900, and when the Conservative Party were in Opposition in the 1906 Parliament, that two right hon. Gentlemen got up from this bench and directly contradicted each other. Nowadays if that happened people would say, "How terrible; there is no discipline; people are actually presenting two different points of view." The mere fact that Government is so regularised and disciplined, as indeed it must be, makes it all the more necessary to have occasions when the views of Private Members can be put forward.

Mr. H. Morrison: The noble Lord will recall that in the last Parliament, towards the end, there was a very similar situation between the Leader of the Opposition and one of the then Members for the Scottish Universities.

Earl Winterton: As I said the other day, I am an old bird and it is not quite so easy as the right hon. Gentleman thinks to put salt on my tail. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as with a reference the Prime Minister made to

me recently, I have an aberration of memory on the matter. I do not remember anything about that. I am referring to the dim and distant past. I remember Sir Edward Clarke, a most distinguished Member of the Conservative Party but one whose views were palatable to those who were in favour of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's policy. I remember him, soon after the start of the 1906 Parliament, making a speech in direct opposition to the Leader. The same happened to the Liberals when they were divided over the South African war.
There is no doubt about the value of Private Members' Bills. The historic examples have often been mentioned. There is the Plimsoll Line which resulted from a Private Members' Bill introduced, I think, by a man called Plimsoll. There is the more modern case of Sir Alan Herbert's legislation on divorce. There are many others.

Mr. Messer: Daylight saving.

Earl Winterton: Daylight saving, and many others. I conclude as I began, with the utmost cordiality and frankness and with that courtesy which always distinguishes me, by saying to both Front Benches that while we accept their agreement on this occasion that does not mean to say that we shall not raise the matter again.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not think that even the timely elevation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should prevent us from adding a word from these benches. As one who was present on a large number of occasions in the past when these matters have been discussed, I think a word should be said. I do not agree with the noble Lord's recollection that the procedure applied to the reform initiated by Samuel Plimsoll. Samuel Plimsoll was helped to secure his important reform by getting into trouble with the Chair, when he was rebuked for calling upon the House to face up to what he described as the "villainous sending of men to their deaths in those old hulks."
May I also admit what a pleasure it is to see that the Liberal Party is now represented in this House on a question which concerns the liberties of the House? Earlier in the Debate, neither section of the Liberal Party was here,


neither that section which has promised always to vote Conservative, or the other section which tries occasionally to vote Liberal. We very much welcome the presence of both sections of the Party today. I would like to say, that, whenever I have been privileged to hear the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), I always find that I am in agreement with one sentence of his speech. I find it with the same joy as that with which I find the pork in the beans.
He said that this proposal was not one to be worked out through the usual channels. As a humble back bencher, I do not know what these recondite affairs are. We only know "the usual channels" as a single channel that passes under the counter between the two Front Benches. It is obvious from the earlier discussion that that channel had not been extended to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and also to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, but what I would like to see when these Motions are discussed for the next Session is a channel extending across this Gangway that now separates us from those in a more distinguished position.
I want to suggest—because this is important and really quite serious—that, certainly, much of the most constructive pleasure which is given to back benchers arises from Private Members' Time. The hon. Member for East Croydon was not here in the last Parliament, and, at any rate, his speech rather shows that he has forgotten his long absence, because, even in the limited time which was then provided, more Private Members' Bills were introduced and reached the Statute Book, than in the past ten years and they did so because, in that Parliament, Private Members tried to work co-operatively from both sides of the House in the constructive measures which they put forward. There was a great deal of co-operation and understanding, and I remember that in one case a Private Member's Bill only got through just as the Door was closing against it.
I must deplore the fact that we had to take this course today, but I am sure it is right. It is nonsense in a Session which started so late as this one did to introduce time for Private Members' Bills when they will never have a chance of reaching the Statute Book. In this Session, there

is no time, but in the next Session there will be. The Iron and Steel Act will be brought in by Order and the time of all the administrative organs will be occupied in dealing with matters like that, so that it may very well be that a good deal more Parliamentary time will be available. Certainly, it is exceedingly important, and, from the point of view of those of us on this side of the House very beneficial that, at long last, we should have an opportunity of devoting more time to smaller social reforms, but which are, nevertheless, so very important.
I am sorry that this course has not been possible this Session for another reason. I had hoped that the Opposition, who have more right to be aggrieved about this than anybody, might have introduced some of the many matters upon which we have been looking to them for enlightenment. A large number of the proposals made at the time of the General Election were adumbrated very briefly and without any details, and I would have welcomed an opportunity on which they might have told us more about them. For instance, the proposal for a minimum wage of £6 per week only came forward after the proprietor of the "Daily Express" got back from abroad and never was really put forward in full detail. It might still be possible to secure more information about that, and I think it is important that it should be available when we take part in the discussion of a Motion like this. We might have an opportunity for them to tell us how many Tories had already adopted the proposal and how many Tory councils had already related it to their roadmen and so on.
There is one other important point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in the opening days of this Parliament, rather talked about the Opposition as being an homogenous party—

Earl Winterton: What my right hon. Friend really said was "homogeneous."

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. It is very gratifying to know that the noble Lord, after 44 years in this House, has learnt something, even on a mere question of pronunciation.
The real trouble in the present situation is that the group which is known as the National Liberal-Conservative group has


had no opportunity of putting a party point of view at all. They have been swept up into the Tory Party, and, consequently, they have lost that opportunity to which we have been looking forward. Within a few days, the newspapers will be full of letters about the first cuckoo, but it would be tragic if the House were denied the privilege of hearing the authentic voice of the National Liberal-Conservative. On these Motions, they will have their opportunity, and we shall watch the development of this political split mind, a fascinating study, both for the politician and the psychiatrist.

5.27 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: It is indicative of the way in which hon. Members regard this matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), at the commencement of his speech, should have talked about the privileges of Private Members. I want to emphasise that what we are really discussing this afternoon is an encroachment on the rights of Private Members of this House. I think the Lord President himself made an error when he said that no case could be made out in this Session for facilities for the presentation of Bills by Private Members. It is for the Lord President to make out a case for denying Private Members the opportunity of introducing Private Bills rather than making out a case for preventing their introduction.
All recent authorities and pronouncements on the development of our procedure have drawn attention to the growing power of the Executive in the House of Commons, and, while I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) that this must be regarded as an exceptional occasion, because the Session has started so late, I also believe that, on all sides of the House, we should guard against a further encroachment by the Executive on the time of Private Members. Those who negotiate through the usual channels and represent the Conservative Party take account of all considerations, but, of course, the right hon. Gentlemen who negotiate do so as Front Benchers, and are, therefore, to some extent under suspicion, because they must, and rightly, see themselves very shortly as occupying the Front Bench opposite and themselves

speaking from the Box from which the Lord President spoke just now.
There is only one other point that I want to make, and it is that the functions of the House of Commons have frequently been described as critical, legislative and deliberate. I do not think we are concerned with criticism this afternoon, but I am not sure that the Lord President is right if he believes that the presentation of Bills does not in itself give this House an occasion for valuable deliberation. It is not always necessary that the introduction of a Bill should finish with that Bill becoming an Act of Parliament. It is not necessary that the Bill should go through all its stages in order to ensure that some valuable contribution has been made to the deliberations carried out in this House.
While I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has denied to Private Members their right of introducing Private Bills under any form of procedure, I am glad that he has allowed a limited number of days for the introduction of Motions. In conclusion, I would say that, speaking as a back bencher, I hope no one on this side of the House or opposite will regard this as in any way a precedent, and that we are completely free to demand—if that is the right word to use—that the rights of Private Members are restored at the first opportunity.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I do not know whether I have gained a wrong impression from listening to this Debate, but from the speeches which have been made, one would think that the Motion was for the abolition of Private Members' time. As I understand it, that is not the fact. I cannot conceive for one moment the possibility of the Government providing Private Members' time in this Session. It is not true that a Private Member's Bill is merely introduced, debated, and then done with. In point of fact, if a Private Member's Bill gets its Second Reading, it then goes through all the processes like any other Bill. It has to go upstairs to Committee, and it has to be given exactly the same procedure as any other Bill. Anybody can see that in the limited time available to the Government, it would be quite impossible for Private Members' Bills of that type to get through this House at all.
Indeed, one can obviously see that what the Government are asking for in this instance is quite reasonable, but I want to support the point of view that this must not be taken as an indication that back bench Members are prepared to surrender their rights. This ought to be regarded as a very special circumstance. I have very lively recollections of some other important Bills which were Private Members' Bills, such as the Humane Slaughter Bill, the Hire Purchase Bill, and the Divorce Law (Reform) Bill. Bills of that character were Private Members' Bills, and because of that I should not like it to be thought that though there are those of us who will support the Government in wanting to take Private Members' time in this Session, we do not believe it is the right of Private Members to have that time at their disposal in ordinary legislative periods.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That—

(1) save as provided in paragraph (2) of this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every sitting for the remainder of this Session, and no Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be introduced;
(2) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday 5th May, Friday 12th May, Friday 19th May, Friday 16th June and Friday 23rd June; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (3) of this Order; and
(3) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 19th April, Wednesday 26th April, Wednesday 3rd May, Wednesday 24th May and Wednesday 14th June."

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

5.34 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACT TO BE IN FORCE FOR SPECIFIED TIMES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I wish to make one short point which has been made before. We are discussing here, among other things, Amendments to the Army Act. The problem with which the Committee is faced is the fact that the Army Act as such is not now printed. The last print of the Act is dated 1940. It was reprinted in 1945, but since that date there have been a great many Amendments, and if other hon. Members try, as I have tried, to read through the Bill which we are now discussing, to discover where some of the Sections referred to exist in the Act, they will find it very difficult. Of course, members on the Government Front Bench have many helpers to paste in Amendments to their copies so that they can more easily understand what has happened. Therefore, I put forward this plea—that as early as possible the Government should reprint an up-to-date edition of the Army Act as it is really in force today.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have listened with much sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's plea. He will appreciate, I think, that in the years during which this difficulty arose there were obvious reasons why it was not possible to provide a more recent and up-to-date print of the Army Act. I realise the force of what he says, and we will look at the matter and see if we can help.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(INCREASE OF PERIOD OF RE-ENGAGEMENT.)

In subsection (1) of section eighty-four of the Army Act (which provides that subject to the regulations of the Army Council a soldier of the Regular Forces may in certain circumstances be re-engaged for such further period of Army service as will make up a total continuous period of twenty-two years service) there shall be substituted for the words "a total continuous period of twenty-two years of Army service," the words "a total continuous period of twenty-seven years of Army service."—[Earl Winterton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am moving this Clause on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) whose name appears on the Order Paper. We on this side of the House think that this raises an important question, though a somewhat complicated one to explain. Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that from my own experience, and from what I have heard from distinguished soldiers, one of the things most urgently required in the Army at the present time is a greater number of long-service soldiers, particularly senior N.C.O.s, not from the point of view of the present, but from that of the future. I do not think I am giving away any confidences which should not be mentioned when I say that having been enabled, largely through the courtesy of the present Minister of Defence when Secretary of State for War, to visit a number of units in Germany, in the Army of Occupation, it was impressed upon my mind that the need, not only for more Regular soldiers, but for more long-service Regular soldiers, was very great indeed.
As I understand the position—and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will correct me if I am inaccurate—it is this. Section 84 of the Army Act, as it stands at present, lays down that a soldier can engage or reengage for a period or periods up to a total of 22 years in all, and after those 22 years any re-engagement is on the basis of one year at a time, if the Army Council is agreeable. I understand that under the Army Act it is not possible for the War Office to say to the man that he may serve for five years. In

other words, they are compelled to re-engage him on the basis of only one year.
It will be seen from that—if I am correct, as I believe I am—that a soldier, on completing 22 years, has no guarantee of any continuity of employment in the Forces, even if the War Office visualised employing him for a further five years I am informed that this uncertainty has had the effect of making highly skilled N.C.O.s and warrant officers, who are invaluable to the Army, leave at the end of 22 years rather than face the uncertainty of continuing service on the year to year basis.
Of course, it will be out of order on a new Clause of this kind to go widely into the question of the difference between the British Army and the United States Army. But the Committee will be aware, no one more so than the right hon. Gentleman, that the American Army has no difficulty in obtaining Regular soldiers at the present time. It is interesting to note, and to consider as it may be one of the reasons why they are so much more successful, that a man may engage in the United States Army for a period up to a total of 30 years, where the American authorities are prepared for him so to serve.
I should like to call attention to an interesting point in this connection. The United States is a young country in every sense of the word. People like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), and others of us who have had experience across the Atlantic, know that emphasis is much more on youth in the United States than in this country; that is they, more than we do, put young people in responsible positions, except in Government. It is remarkable that in the United States, with this emphasis on youth, the Army authorities consider it worthwhile to employ a man for 30 years.
As the regulations, which are based on the Act, stand at present, the soldier who enlisted at the age of 18 can only serve in the British Army on a year to year basis after the first period of 22 years' service. It might be asked whether that really makes much difference. I think it would make a great deal of difference if a man, knowing that his service had given satisfaction and he had reached a high position, was told that he had the certainty of serving for another five years.


He would be much more likely to re-engage than if he were re-engaged on a year to year basis. I put that with some confidence to the Government.
I am well aware that the Under-Secretary, or whoever replies, quite properly will neither confirm nor deny what I am about to ask. A statement has reached me that the Army Council and the War Office would like to agree to this proposal in the new Clause but the Treasury has taken objection to it. If that really Is so—I am not asking the Government to confirm or deny it—that is very shortsighted on the part of the Treasury. The great difficulty which the Government are facing at present, and which any Government would face, is to get sufficient men in the Regular Army without having to pay them such a sum of money that the country could not afford to pay.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has made it quite clear that the main purpose underlying this Clause is that we should encourage regular recruiting by it. There is no question that one of the biggest stumbling blocks that those who desire to increase Regular recruiting have had to overcome in the past has been the natural uncertainty a man must have when he first contemplates joining and he wants to take up a profession for the whole of his working life. I believe that by passing the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill each year without debate on Second Reading, the House of Commons automatically assumes that a standing Army is necessary in this country. Therefore, even if there are some hon. Members who are doubtful about that, I do not think we need go into the pros and cons of whether or not that Army is really necessary. I believe it is. The House, having accepted the principle by passing the Second Reading without debate, it is up to us to make sure that the Regular Army is made as efficient as possible.
5.45 p.m.
We want to encourage men who are prepared to spend practically the whole of their working lives in military service, to go into the Regular Army. There have been many doubts and dilemmas raised in their minds in the past. Owing to influenza I was unfortunately unable

to be present at the Debate on the Estimates this year, but I have read what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in particular had to say with regard to finding employment for men after they have left the Forces. Hon. Members may remember that on two occasions—in the Debate on the Superannuation Act, 1949, and again in an Adjournment Debate, instituted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) on the employment of ex-Service men, I put forward a suggestion that the sooner we welded the Civil Service and the Armed Forces closer together in matters of employment benefit, pensions and things of that kind, the better.
My one criticism of this new Clause moved by the noble Lord is that it is merely one bite at the cherry. We should try to see whether this cannot be the basis for a very thorough review of the whole status of the man undergoing military service and the man in the Civil Service. If this new Clause is accepted, it will mean that men will probably be between 45 and 48 when they retire after joining at 18. There is only one official appeal being made today to men of that sort of age. That is for Civil Defence. There is a possibility that might well be followed up. If some assurance could be given to men who finish military service that they would be guaranteed a job in Civil Defence, it would have the added advantage that some of their military service would be of very great value in their job in Civil Defence.
I see from Column 1582 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th March that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot put it to the Minister that if he made an appeal to industry he would get a very good response in the employment of men after they had finished their term of military service. I put it to the Minister that if as I hope he will, he does make that appeal, I have my doubts whether industry can ever hope to cope with the numbers involved. I doubt very much whether industrialists would be able to take sufficient men, aged between 45 and 48, and not skilled in the particular industry concerned, to overcome this great difficulty that a young man has when he contemplates joining the Forces, and par


ticularly the Army. That difficulty is that at the end of his time he will not have another trade and may have to face unemployment or something of that kind. I would say, therefore, to the noble Lord that whilst I am sympathetic with his point of view, he does not go far enough.

Earl Winterton: My hon. and gallant Friend must not think that I am not as sympathetic as he is. I entirely agree that the aim should be wider, but I confined myself to my new Clause to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: If we move a new Clause, I should have thought we were entitled to discuss the matter fairly widely. Certainly, my remarks have not been intended as a criticism of my noble Friend. They were merely intended to explain what I hoped was his intention, which was to try and overcome this very real reluctance some men have, this uncertainty they have, when contemplating joining the Army, that they will not be able to find employment in the later period of their lives.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that the real way to tackle this problem is to make it unnecessary for a man when he leaves National Service to have to go into any other work. That involves a greater extension of age than up to 48. It means that a man has got to be in State service up to the age of 65. Obviously, there is only about one rank in the Army where that would be possible—the rank of field marshal. Even there, there have been difficulties in the past. I am quite certain that a good many of those who have attended passing out parades at Sandhurst could bear witness to the fact that their listening powers have been sorely taxed by heroes of forgotten wars. I do not intend any disrespect to those gallant men.
Obviously we cannot guarantee employment in the Armed Forces up to the age of 65. Therefore, at the age at which those men cease to be of value in military service the State should guarantee employment for them in the Civil Service or in some other capacity. I am convinced that if we are to tackle this problem really effectively, we must make sure that there is no question of a man at the end of his valuable service to the State having to rely on complete chance of getting employment in the future. Let

the State guarantee the whole of that period if possible.
I hope this new Clause will be a springboard for a real review of the whole of this matter. I am convinced that the long-term Regular soldier is essential today, despite all the writings of theorist Socialists in the past. I am convinced that a long-service Regular Army is absolutely essential, and I believe that there is as much chance of increasing Regular recruiting by doing something of the kind which I have suggested as there is in the Amendment to an earlier Section in this Act seeking to shorten the period of extension for those serving overseas. I hope that will have the effect of encouraging more recruits. If that Amendment is likely to improve recruiting, I submit that the proposal of my noble Friend and the extension of that proposal which I am suggesting will certainly stand a chance of increasing Regular recruiting. That is the aim of us all, and I hope that my noble Friend will not take exception to my remarks in support of an addition to this valuable new Clause.

Mr. Paget: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Charles. Will it be in Order to discuss in a general way methods of improving recruitment into the Regular Forces? That seemed to be rather what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was discussing. Or are we confined to the particular method suggested in this new Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think we are confined to the new Clause which seeks to increase the period of enlistment from 22 years to 27 years. If something is said on lines which tend to encourage that proposal, that would be allowed.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for that indication. This is a subject in which I am greatly interested, and at another time I should like to have added my suggestions to those which have been put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At the moment I propose to confine myself to the particular suggestion contained in the new Clause. Before doing so, I ought to point out that on all other occasions when we have been discussing military matters, I have made it very plain that there is nobody more


anxious than I am to see improved recruitment for the Regular Army or more aware of the disadvantage which we are suffering at the moment as a result of an inadequate supply of experienced N.C.O.s.
But I am very doubtful indeed if this is the right method. Has the noble Lord considered the effect which this Clause would have on the prospects of promotion? Any man in the Regular Army enlists for 12 years. That is his first engagement, partly with the Colours and partly with the Reserves. Then comes the question of re-engagement, which is the basis of his pension. When a man considers whether he shall re-engage, particularly if he is the type of man we really want—the type of man who will make the sort of N.C.O. who is the backbone of any professional Army—he will be very interested indeed in the prospects of promotion. If a contemporary of his is just in front of him, he will know that his chances of becoming R.S.M. or even company sergeant major are substantially nil.
When a man gets to the end of the 22 years and comes to the period of continuation from year to year, that is the point where promotion by selection begins in practice to operate again. The right to continue or not to continue provides the avenues of promotion to the people who are following after. If everybody signs on right away and has the right to remain there for 27 years, I am afraid that we shall introduce into promotion a rigidity which will discourage the ambitious man from re-engagement if there happen to be one or two of his contemporaries in front of him.

Earl Winterton: Surely the point is this. Under the present Section in the Act this re-engagement for the period is only with the approval of the man's commanding officer. All that I seek to do is to enable that approval to be given for a further period of years and to make it substantive, which it would not be if it were done on a year-to-year basis. I should not think that the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman had any bearing on the point at all.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The position is this. The re-engagement is for 10 years, that is, from 12 to 22 years. That, of course, is

with the approval of the commanding officer. Once the 22 years have expired, then the engagement is from year to year and it really is a matter of privilege. It is only allowed if the man is wanted for the job and is regarded as being right on top of the job that he is doing. It is at the 22 years' stage that many N.C.O.s drop out and that the chances to reach the highest rung—R.S.M. and C.S.M.—emerge for those N.C.O.s who have the privilege of continuation, and I am afraid that the effect of this Clause would be to fix the scales of the ladder of promotion into a rigidity which would discourage the ambitious man from signing on again.
I hope I shall not go too wide when I make this suggestion: if we had permanent, full-time senior N.C.O.s in our Territorial battalions, which I should like to see, then the 22-year man could be guaranteed a job in a Territorial battalion, provided he had earned the rank of sergeant. I believe that would be a valuable guarantee of employment and also would be extremely valuable to the Territorial Army.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) had made his new Clause wider, for I should like to make some suggestions on the lines of those made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I should like to know whether the Army pay as much attention to what happens to the long-term soldier who has completed his service as they should, and whether they offer the necessary incentive.
I appreciate the point advanced about the jobs which are offered to these men. What sort of a job is a man likely to be offered after he has been in the Army for 22 years? But there is another point: what sort of a house is he to be offered after he has been in the Army for 22 years? I suggest that that is one of the reasons why at the present time the prospective recruit wonders what is likely to happen to him after he has been in the Army for 22 years or 25 years—what is likely to happen when he comes home and has to compete in the housing queue. This is not a theoretical question, because hon. Members will recall that I once drew to the attention of the Secretary of State for War the case of a captain in my town who, after 25 years in the Army, was threatened with an eviction order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member will find it difficult to develop this housing argument on the new Clause.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to pursue that question, but what I do not understand is how it can be irrelevant to the question of the future of the soldier with 25 years' service if, at the end of his term of service, the War Office adopts the attitude, "What is to happen to him is no longer any concern of ours." I will leave the question of the Army captain, but I want to make this point: how can it help recruiting if, in the middle of a recruiting campaign, we have ex-soldiers with long terms of service in the Army evicted from the barracks on to the streets?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the terms of the new Clause. Men with 22 years service are not recruits, and I do not think one can introduce into this Debate a discussion on recruiting. The Clause simply extends the period by five years.

Mr. Hughes: If the House thinks that what is likely to happen to a man after he has been in the Army for 25 years is of no concern, and if it thinks it is entitled to acquiesce in his being thrown on to the streets after 25 years service, then that is a very poor advertisement indeed for recruiting.

Mr. Low: I am sorry that I am unable to argue with the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). You, Sir Charles, seem to have done it successfully yourself. I should like to refer for one moment to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), before I turn to the points I wish to put to the Secretary of State for War. The hon. and learned Member presented to us the two conflicting points which enter into any terms of engagement in any walk of life. Briefly, they are, on the one hand, security, and on the other hand, selectivity, no matter how we may like to regard them. Of course, we must bear in mind that the Army authorities must be able to select the right men to retain in the right places, but what my noble Friend seeks to do, as I understand it, is to help the Secretary of State for War and the Army authorities to give a proper career to young men joining the service.

As the Secretary of State will appreciate, it is very difficult for those of us who do not have the help which he receives to draft Clauses which are designed exactly to achieve the results we seek. In thinking about this subject over the week end—too late, I admit, to affect the Order Paper—

Mr. John McKay: rose—

Mr. Low: If the hon. Member will permit me to finish my sentence, I shall then give way. It occurred to me that, while trying to assist the Secretary of State by creating a more attractive and longer career for the young man when he recruits, we have not assisted him to escape from the rigidity which is inherent in the way the present Section of the Army Act is drafted. Unfortunately, this rigidity is continued in the words we have used. However, the point I wish to make is this: will not the right hon. Gentleman accept the spirit which is behind the Clause, as described to the Committee by my noble Friend when he moved it? That spirit was quite clear. We want to give a longer career to the recruits.

Mr. McKay: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain as clearly as possible exactly what would be the ultimate benefit to the man if he served the extra five years, because that is a point which I do not quite understand.

Mr. Low: I was just coming to that. I was pointing out that what we are seeking to do, first, is to remove any statutory bar to the young recruit having a long career before him if he so chooses—a long and secure career. As my noble Friend explained at the beginning of this Debate, the man has a secure career from his 12th year to his 22nd year, but thereafter he has a career which goes rolling on one year at a time, or rolling on in short periods at a time. We seek to give a man a secure career right from the 12th year onwards. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton has described the situation up to the time when the decision is taken after the 12th year. It seems to me that there is a case for removing the statutory bar which may prevent the Secretary of State from giving the recruit that offer right from the start of his career.

Mr. Paget: I think I misled the hon. Member on one point I made. From the


22nd year there used to be continuation from year to year up to the five years, but I am told that since last year there can be continuation for one year, or three years or five years.

Mr. Low: I am bound to say I have not heard any announcement to that effect made in the Chamber, but no doubt the Secretary of State will confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Perhaps a statement has been made and we did not know. Perhaps we have been rather negligent in our duties lately.
Now I should like to come to the comparison with the United States practice. It seems to me we should be prepared to learn from what has been happening on the other side of the water, even though their experience is not so long an experience as that of the British Army. There is no doubt that the United States Army has been able in one way or another to find more recruits than we have been able to find, either in proportion to what we need or in absolute numbers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that in the examination which he and his advisers are giving to this matter they are paying due respect to what has happened in America. If it has been found that a 30-year engagement has proved attractive there, I hope that he will consider offering a 30-year engagement over here.
As the Army develops, it changes its attraction as a career to our young men. I think one of the mistakes we tend to make at the moment in appealing for recruits is that we do not realise that with the advance of mechanisation, and with the increase of the technical services of the Army, the attraction the Army has to our citizens as a whole is widened and slightly altered. I think we should look again at our terms of Service, particularly at the length of career that we offer. I do not think that necessarily it is right to have the same length of career in the technical services as in some fighting arms, for instance, the infantry. I think it may be wise for the Secretary of State to have a special form of engagement for people who are recruited into the technical services. I think it is also true to say that there are young people who go into the fighting arms who would be very useful as N.C.O.s and warrant officers in administrative posts, and that there is

thus available for them an excellent career far beyond the age of 40 or 45. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider how he can attract suitable people into that branch of the Service.
Above all, what we hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when he replies to the Debate on this new Clause, which raises such an obviously important subject, is that he is applying his mind, and that the War Office is applying its mind, to the present changes in the Army and to future requirements, and particularly that they have an eye to filling the ranks of the Regular part of the Army with suitable men, because that is, after all, what he wants and what we want. I hope that he will give us some assurance that he is sympathetic to the points which my noble Friend put and which others of us have tried to put, the spirit if not the actual letter of which has the support, I think, of some of his hon. Friends sitting behind him.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I want to express a few views not altogether unrelated to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) had in mind, though I hope I shall manage to keep within the Rules of Order. As I understand it, the new Clause would give an opportunity to the men in the Army to extend their time of service. I want to consider this proposal from the point of view of the man coming out of the Army, whether we leave the time of service as it is or whether we extend the time of service as suggested in the new Clause. I want to consider the proposal from the point of view of the man coming out of the Army who, to support himself and his family, must of necessity enter some civil occupation on leaving the Service.
Let it be admitted that, whether the man comes out at the end of the present period of service or at the end of an extended period of service, he cannot rest upon his oars but must of necessity engage in some civil employment. Then this question arises, What is the best time for the ex-soldier to have a chance of getting civil employment? Even in these days we hear of some employers in certain trades who think that a man is too old at 50. So it would seem that there is the necessity for a soldier to leave the Army at an earlier


age, rather than to leave it to a later age, if he is not to lose an opportunity of getting the civil employment that he needs.
It can be admitted logically, I think. If we are thinking particularly of the permanent position of a soldier after he has left the Army, that we must consider the age at which he is most likely to succeed in training himself for a new job in civil life to enable him after his service to keep his head above water for the rest of his life. In my opinion, it is far better, for the permanent benefit of the ex-soldier himself, that he should come out of the Army at an earlier age rather than a later, in order that he may fit himself for civil employment. This is all the more necessary if the pension for which he can qualify in the Army is not sufficient, or is not likely to be sufficient in any case, to put him in an independent position in civil life after his period of service. Therefore, I think the Government's rejection of the new Clause is logical and sensible.
With regard to the argument that an Army man, because he is an Army man, because he works directly on behalf of the State, ought therefore to have some security of employment, I question the necessity of that. I question it from a general view point. Why should an Army man, because he has served a given time in the Army, have a special, outstanding privilege above that of civilians? I do not quite see that point of view. We shall find from actual experience—

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? I am not seeking to forestall the Chair, but surely what the hon. Gentleman is saying is far outside the scope of the new Clause? He is talking about general conditions of Army service. We are not concerned in the new Clause with general conditions of Army service. Everybody who joins the Regular Forces of the Crown has that right. As far as I know it does not arise out of this new Clause.

Mr. McKay: I am dealing with the argument put forward that men should have security on coming out of the Army—security of employment.

Earl Winterton: That has nothing to do with the new Clause. There is no suggestion of it in the new Clause. The

hon. Gentleman is arguing about something not contained in the new Clause.

Mr. McKay: Perhaps it is not contained in this new Clause. I did not say it was.

Earl Winterton: Then it is out of Order.

Mr. McKay: I am now dealing with the arguments advanced in the Debate. I presume the noble Lord is not opposed to that.

Earl Winterton: The only point is this. An hon. Member is responsible for his own Amendment, and is entitled to call attention to the fact that certain questions raised are, in his opinion, not in accord with his Amendment.

Mr. McKay: I am sorry that I have not the support of the noble Lord in what I am saying.

Earl Winterton: I feel that I must raise this point of Order, because this is an important matter. I am not saying this in any hostility to the hon. Gentleman, but anybody who moves an Amendment is naturally responsible for what is in it, and, if in the Debate there is raised something which has nothing to do with the Amendment, then that hon. Member is put in a very difficult position.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of Order—

Earl Winterton: I am raising a point of Order at the moment. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that he is not now in the last House of Commons.

Mr. Dodds: Hear, hear.

Earl Winterton: I am raising a point of Order, and I shall remain on my feet until the hon. Gentleman keeps silent. I am not attacking the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), but I must ask whether it is in Order on this new Clause to discuss the conditions of employment after a man leaves the Army. I understand it is not in Order. If it is, I shall be very glad to make a further speech.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be submitting that if a man were kept in the Army for the extra five years suggested in the new Clause he would not be able to get such


a good job in civilian life, and I think he is perfectly in order in arguing that on this new Clause.

Mr. McKay: I am very glad to hear that on this matter you differ from the Father of the House, Sir Charles.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to know if my hon. Friend is entitled to argue that a further five years' service would mean a difference to the man's chance of getting a house.

The Deputy-Chairman: Probably not, because that is problematical.

Mr. McKay: As I understand it, the new Clause is put forward in order to help the soldier, and I am trying to assist that object. I am now attempting to point out some of the difficulties with which a soldier is faced. Although we may disagree with the new Clause, I am sure we are all at one with those who put it on the Order Paper in wishing to help the soldier. I think that if the noble Lord had used better judgment in assessing the feelings of the House he might have succeeded in achieving his object. I think he might have succeeded in helping the soldier, as he wants to, if he had given much more consideration—

Earl Winterton: If I may say so, we all recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a most respected Member of this House, and speaks with great authority in it. I would be very happy to consider an Amendment to my new Clause. If he would draft in his own words how he would like it to read, I am sure we shall all listen to it with great interest. May I also say how pleased I am that he is continuing this Debate. I am sure the Government will be equally delighted.

Mr. McKay: Since the noble Lord invites me to do that, I would suggest something on these lines: that we give the soldier a pension which will enable him to live comfortably for the rest of his natural life. What we can do, and should do—and perhaps what we will do, given the opportunity in the future—certainly what the Labour Party will do—

Earl Winterton: That cannot be put into a Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the new Clause under discussion.

Mr. McKay: We all have sympathy with the soldier, and we all want to do the best we can for him. The Regular soldier spends the best part of his life in the Army, and when he comes out he is in a peculiar difficulty. We ought to realise that he has been in a special occupation which does not usually fit him for civilian life; and he therefore ought to be given a special period for training, together with a sufficient income, during which time he can fit himself into civilian life.

Mr. George Wigg: I am sure that what the noble Lord has in mind is for the advantage of the Regular soldier, but I am not so sure that he is going the best way about achieving it, because extending the period a man has to serve might make the man hesitate about reengaging or indeed about extending his service. Let me remind the noble Lord of what has happened over the last few years. Before the war a Regular soldier on a 12-year engagement had the worry of wondering whether he would be allowed to extend his service; and it was not until he had completed nine years with the Colours, or had been promoted to the rank of sergeant, that he could be sure he would be allowed to extend his service. If he extended it to the 21 years, he could, if during his re-engagement period he got a job, apply for his discharge, and he was allowed to take a free discharge. That is not so bad. I can speak with some personal knowledge of this, and I know that many men will seek the opportunity of getting out when a job presents itself.
The noble Lord will know that before the war a man could leave the Colours after 18 years' service and get a modified pension. Today, he cannot. Therefore, if in the 12th year there is an obligation to re-engage for 15 years and not 10 years, a considerable number of men will hesitate before taking the very step the noble Lord wants them to take. I know what he is after, and I am at one with him in doing anything possible to secure the future of the Regular soldier, but I am convinced that this is not the way to do it.
There was a time when I had a vested interest in this; I think I can claim to be the only Member of this House, and I think the other House, who has reengaged for 21 years with the Colours. I know what that decision means; and I also know what it means when a man comes out after 18 years' service. At the risk of being out of order, I would say, following upon what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), has said, that I know the worry a soldier has about getting a house; I know the worry about getting a job; and I do not think it will help either the Army or the Regular soldier to lengthen the period of service at the very moment when the soldier has to make this vital decision. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw this new Clause and have another think, and perhaps put it down in a modified form on some future occasion.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): We have had a very interesting Debate on this important and intricate matter. The noble Lord has, if I may say so, done a great service in bringing up this matter. Obviously, we are all, on both sides of the House, in the most cordial agreement with the purpose which the new Clause seeks to serve. What I think it is true to say the Army Council wishes to achieve above all in this matter is flexibility, so that the soldier whom the Army Council wishes to re-engage should have opportunities of the most varied sort for re-engagement; so that, to put it colloquially, we suit every taste if possible, bearing in mind, of course, the Army's own requirements all the time.
6.30 p.m.
In the first place, I am glad to be able to say that the position is not quite as rigid as the noble Lord thought it was. That point has already been put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Already the man who has re-engaged can continue after his 22nd year, not only from year to year, as was the case, but in blocks of years from one to five, or any intermediate number. That was a now regulation which was brought into effect last year. I think that it has been a wise and useful thing, but it seems that we at the War Office are at fault in that we did not make it very widely known. I think

that this Debate has served a useful purpose if only to make that fact known.
At present the exact position is that a man in his 21st year of service can, subject to the approval of the Officer in Charge Records re-engage not only from year to year but for a block of years up to five. That has been done, and it did not require an Amendment to the Army Act. What I am advised would require an amendment of the Act would be if the period of re-engagement from one to five years were made so that a man could choose to re-engage before his 21st year of service. It has been suggested and considered in the War Office whether that would not be a wise thing to do—to bring it back, say, to the 15th year or something of that sort, and that is under consideration now. If that is considered to be wise, it will be done.
I think that the difficulty of this new Clause has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). What we are aiming at, and what we have taken steps towards, is flexibility. The difficulty here would be in substituting the words "twenty-seven" for "twenty-two." There are advantages and disadvantages in changing the period, but it would still be a fixed period, and I think that the Army Council's objection—I can say, in answer to the noble Lord's question, that it was not just the Treasury's objection that made them not like this particular Amendment—is because it did not give the increased flexibility, the option, as it were, which they are after. Therefore, we hope that this new Clause will be withdrawn; first because we have gone some way to meet it already by these new regulations; secondly because the Army Council has not expressed the view yet whether we should go further to meet the situation by a subsequent amendment of the Army Act, bringing the period of continuance of service back from 21 to, say, 15 years; and thirdly because what we want, above all, is flexibility.
I think that the arguments which have been used come into effect, that what is needed is that a man should feel, when he is considering recruitment, re-engagement or at any other critical point in his service career, two things—first, that he has a long, satisfying career in front of him, and


secondly, that when it ends he has a good chance of civilian employment. I think that there is difficulty in getting to the point of a specific guarantee of post-service employment, but the prospects of every good man who leaves the Army of securing civil employment are good, and no doubt can be improved still further.
We have made a move in this matter by contact with industry. We have an official committee collecting guarantees from industry of employment for different categories of men, and they have had an excellent response. There is a good deal in what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said in that it is possibly easier to fix up a man who goes out at 40 than a man who goes out at 45. From that point of view, the longer term may on the whole increase rather than diminish the problem.
I would say, in summing up, that we think that this is a matter of great interest and importance both from the point of view of the Army and the individual soldier, and we think that we have been able to go some way to meet the point of getting greater flexibility, and that we can go a step further but not exactly in the way suggested in the new Clause.

Earl Winterton: Before I ask leave to withdraw the new Clause, I should like to say a few words. First, I should like with great sincerity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous and agreeable opening remarks in which he said, as a result of this new Clause being moved, we had had an interesting and important discussion. If I may say so with respect, Sir Charles, I should like to congratulate the Committee on the way in which Members on both sides have attended this Debate, and for the views which they have put forward. It is an agreeable change from what some-times happened in the old days, when there was a great lack of interest in the welfare of the Army, that we should have had views from both sides of the Committee which were more or less in agreement. I should like to say, Sir Charles, that I was not attempting to suggest that the discussion should be truncated and I was glad to hear points raised by both sides of the Committee and to find myself in complete agreement, for the first time in my life, with

the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to revise his new Clause so that we can collaborate and get inserted a provision that no ex-soldier should be evicted?

Earl Winterton: I think that you, Sir Charles, would have your eye on me if I attempted to answer that question. I can only say that I was in agreement with the view of the hon. Gentleman, which he might use on another occasion but not on this particular occasion.
I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing this matter of the whole question of conditions of service. I think that we want to remove from our minds, and from the mind of the War Office, in particular, any idea of rigidity in this matter and that it is necessary to proceed by precedent. There is always the danger, in the case of the Army and everything else, of things being done by precedent. Personally, I think that one should break precedents. I have broken a precedent in this House, and I address the House from this corner of the Front Bench because I dislike banging the Box. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Low: I wish to ask, with regard to paragraph (h) why it is we no longer need the expression "Commander-in-Chief"? Is it because we do not have a Commander-in-Chief, or is it for some other reason? If it is that we do not have a Commander-in-Chief, it has taken a very long time for this consequential repeal to take place.

Mr. M. Stewart: It is as the hon. Member suggests. The functions of the Commander-in-Chief were transferred to the Army Council, and this Amendment could have been made at any time during the last 40 years.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That the Bill be read the Third time."
I should like to take this opportunity to correct an answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) at an earlier stage. He spoke of the reprinting of the Army Act, and I overlooked the fact that, although the statutory reprinting is not effected for some years, there is a non-statutory copy which can be obtained through the Stationery Office that contains amendments up to the middle of 1949.

Mr. Low: Will the Under-Secretary consult with the Lord President of the Council to see that the Vote Office are supplied with copies? I asked today for the latest copy, and all I could get was this document published in 1940.

Mr. Stewart: It is not a Command Paper, but it can be obtained by the procedure adopted by Members who get Departmental papers.

Earl Winterton: May I point out that in the old days it was always there for Members to read during the Debate? We used to have long Debates on this Bill then which lasted up to six o'clock in the morning.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask whether this unofficial reprint with the amendments is made available to officers and other ranks in the Army who have to use it? My memory is rather a bitter one of being supposed to be responsible for keeping my edition up to date and finding that I had not kept pace with all the amendments.

Mr. Stewart: I will look at both points—the availability to Members of this House and to officers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to ask for some enlightenment in regard to the Second Schedule, which provides for the repeal of Section 10 of an Act passed in the days of Queen Anne, relating to
Officers and soldiers not to destroy game, poultry or fish without leave of the lord of the manor.

I do not know whether this has escaped the notice of the noble Lord, but does it mean that officers and soldiers are now able to destroy game, poultry and fish without the leave of the lord of the manor?

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask whether the hon. Member wishes to invade the Republic of Ireland, because this provision relates only to Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), has overlooked the fact that the ordinary law of the land still applies even when this obsolete enactment is repealed. Before the Act of Union of 1801 was passed, it appeared it had been the practice of soldiers stationed in Ireland to use their weapons not so much against His Majesty's enemies as against the game, and to such an extent that special and exceptional legislation was required to prevent them from so doing. With the passage of time, it would now appear that the behaviour of troops stationed in that part of His Majesty's Dominions has so greatly improved that, while the ordinary law of the land still remains, this special legislation is unncessary.

Earl Winterton: In the interests of historical accuracy, and having Irish blood in my veins, may I point out that they not only shot at the game but at the landlords as well?

Mr. Stewart: The noble Lord is certainly quite right. He may recall the occasion when it was suggested, I forget whether it was in this House or before some official committee, that it would be a good thing if soldiers were taught not only to shoot but to shoot straight and that the proposition was seriously opposed in the interests of Irish landlords. This repeal merely symbolises the improvement in the discipline and behaviour of the troops, which I am sure will gratify the House as a whole.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MEMBER FOR BELFAST, WEST (ELIGIBILITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether the election of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway to this Parliament as Member for Belfast, West, is void by reason of the provisions of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

6.45 p.m.

Professor Savory: I should like to express my gratitude to the Lord President of the Council and to the Government for putting down this Motion. I should like to repeat what I have already said in the House, that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) took the highest legal advice before standing as a Unionist candidate, but that on arrival here, when told that a common informer could obtain a reward of £500 for every day that he voted in the House, he thought it more prudent to have the matter cleared up. I feel sure that this is the best method which could be adopted, and I thank the Government for having put down the Motion.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I have been drawn to my feet by the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory). As this may have been due to something I said in the House or in an article in "The Times," perhaps I ought to make this explanation. I raised this question of the possible disqualification of this hon. Member on 12th July, when one's thoughts were naturally turned to Northern Ireland. As we were dealing with a Bill concerning disqualifications, I pointed out that a candidate who might be disqualified had been adopted in Northern Ireland, and that Members opposite might wish to insert a Clause to do away with any possible disqualification. If there has been any misunderstanding on this matter, I am afraid it has been due to the failure of Members opposite to take any action when the opportunity was offered to them.
I do not think anyone desires to keep an elected Member away from the House for longer than is necessary. Certainly, when the parties are evenly balanced that is most undesirable, and there should be no delay in seeing that there is proper

representation for that part of Ireland. I know that the Select Committee procedure is the suggestion of Members opposite, but I doubt whether it is the most expeditious way to deal with the matter. It may be that this is an issue of law, which is not very suitable to be dealt with by a Select Committee. As Members opposite desire to have a Select Committee, it is their responsibility if there is any delay in the matter. For instance, in the event of it being impossible for the Select Committee to decide the matter, the Select Committee may follow the course set in 1913 and report the matter to the Privy Council. That means that the matter is not in the hands of the House of Commons.
I cannot help saying that I think the Opposition might well have been better advised, particularly as the hon. Member concerned had such excellent advice at his disposal, that if he had taken his seat in the first place then the matter could have been dealt with then and there. We should have been in the position either of giving the electors of West Belfast the opportunity of choosing someone in his place, or of establishing that the hon. Member was entitled to take his seat.

6.51 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) would certainly have taken up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) on condition that the hon. Member for Hornchurch paid the £500 a day if the action by a common informer had succeeded. I do not think any hon. Member would take his seat under those circumstances and be faced with the possibility of a fine of £500 a day. As regards the general proposition whether we were well advised, the hon. Member for Hornchurch has stated that we were very unwise not to have paid attention to what he said, but the last time that he spoke on this matter he was deprecating his own efforts as being those of a humble back bencher. Why then should we do anything at all about what he said?
I have no doubt whatever that the question of whether an Act passed several years before the battle of Trafalgar should keep someone from taking his seat in this House, who has been sent here by the electors of a constituency, is a suitable


subject to be referred to the Select Committee, and I am glad that the Government have brought in this Motion. Whatever has been said about expedition is something with which I agree, and the Government have already shown their desire to fill places that have become vacant in this House. I am sure they will assist to clear up this matter speedily.

6.53 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I formally moved this Motion, and I had anticipated that it would go through in that way. However, that did not happen. I should be very much obliged if the House would pass it before Seven o'Clock, because the points that have been raised will be among the matters into which the Committee will have to look. Therefore, the sooner we set up the Committee and let it proceed with its work the better it will be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Select Committee appointed to consider and report whether the election of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway to this Parliament as Member for Belfast, West, is void by reason of the provisions of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801.

Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Foster, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Oliver, Sir Patrick Spens, Mr. Ernest Thurtle and Captain Waterhouse to be members of the Committee:

Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the quorum—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — PART-TIME NATIONAL SERVICE

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th March, 1950, entitled the National Service (Part-time Service) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 308), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
In the few minutes which will elapse before this Business will be interrupted to deal with the affairs of the London County Council, I hope that I can give hon. Members the intentions of the movers of this Motion. The Minister of

Labour will recall that when the National Service Act was going through this House, he and his colleagues were warned by a number of my hon. Friends that the important powers given to him and his colleagues over the lives and well-being of a large number of young men would be submitted to the strictest scrutiny by hon. Members of this House. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members on all sides, of the House will agree that the exercise of these immensely important powers is a very proper subject for Parliamentary scrutiny. I might perhaps add in parenthesis that it is a little curious that the members of the Independent Liberal Party, who believe themselves to be such champions of people called up for National Service, have not found it convenient to be present during this Debate.
The intention of this Motion is to obtain from the Minister of Labour a clarification of these particular regulations, which, as hon. Members will be aware, deal almost entirely with the very necessary subject of regulating the impact, of part-time service upon the employment and arrangements of a number of young men, when, having carried out their full-time service, they pass to the second stage under the National Service Act—their compulsory part-time service. These regulations have been laid at a very timely hour, since, as hon. Members are aware, the first of the men to be affected by them will pass into that phase of National Service during the coming summer.
I hope it may be possible to deal with these Regulations by what I might describe as an interrogatory rather than an aggressive method. The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself is simply to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the precise significance of certain passages in these Regulations, and also to suggest to him, for his consideration certain defects, which, though perhaps secondary in importance, are none the less to some of us blemishes upon the Order.
In the first place, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Regulation 1 (4). I will read the words:
Any reference in these Regulations to a form set out in the Schedule hereto shall include a reference to a form approved by the Minister substantially to the like effect.
That is, though a small thing, in some degree an abuse of the power of delegated legislation. What we are asked to do


by these Regulations is to approve the forms, and those forms are of some importance, in the Schedule to the Order. Then after the House of Commons has approved them, the right hon. Gentleman will have power to issue them in a different form provided only that they are substantially to the same effect. As I understand it, it is a question for his opinion, not the decision of any outside body, as to whether or not those forms are substantially to the like effect. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and through him to his Department that when Parliamentary sanction is sought for the exercise of delegated power, the House should not be asked to approve one form and then that the form should be varied, but that the Minister and his Department should make up their minds what form they want and get Parliamentary approval for it. That is a secondary point.
I should like to pass to a question which is of greater importance. Under Regulation 3, provision is made for the procedure to be followed when a man desires to come to the re-instatement committee to obtain compensation, his employer having dismissed him because of his liability to part-time service. His power to go to the committee is provided by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, and I am perfectly certain that all hon. Members regard it as right and proper that if an employer behaves so badly as to dismiss a man because of his liability for part-time National Service, it is right and proper that that man should have a right to compensation.
It will be seen that the right of that man to proceed for compensation can only be exercised if he starts those proceedings within 42 days of the matter arising, subject to one further condition—that if the chairman of the reinstatement committee thinks there is good cause for granting a further extension then he can do so. That means, generally speaking, that a man who is wronged in this way has got to start his proceedings within the 42 days.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for faking Private Business), further proceedings stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [By Order]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7.1 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I rather gather that the Bill is not to occupy as much time as one would have liked and that there is a possibility of some accommodation. Nevertheless, I think the House ought to know what are the points in the Bill that some of us do not like. Hon. Members who are not connected with the Metropolis may not quite understand the procedure in connection with London County Council Private Bill legislation. The London County Council is a body which acts not only for itself but on behalf of the 28 borough councils in the London area. It is therefore not merely petitioning on its own behalf but it may be petitioning for one or more of the local government authorities in the London area. That is what distinguishes a London County Council Bill from a Bill by any other local authority. It is in a class apart.
I think it is the case that every year a General Powers Bill is presented by the London County Council. The present Bill is not quite so long as some of its predecessors, but there are certain Clauses in it about which there should be some explanation before the Bill goes to a Committee—if it gets to a Committee. Clause 12 deals with enclosures in connection with entertainments in open spaces and the use of the parks for certain purposes. Most people have sympathy when it comes to open spaces, whether it is in the interests of those who just want to go and sit or stroll in the parks or those who want to play games. When I read the Clause I thought it was some part of the obsession of the Lord President of the Council with regard to the Festival of Britain. However, I may be wrong in that respect. Clause 12 proposes to increase the area which the London County Council can set apart for playing certain specific games rather than the general use of the park by the public.
Clause 13 seems to me ambiguous, do not understand it. It has some


thing to do with footpaths in parks. Whenever I meet something like this which I do not understand my instinct is to oppose it. That is a very sound doctrine. It forces the Minister to explain what it is all about. My experience has been that many Ministers do not understand what their Bills are about, and it is therefore a very healthy exercise for them to debate their own Bills.
There is a whole series of Clauses in this Bill relating to a Westminster City Council undertaking. I happen to live in the City of Westminster and the Westminster City Council have obtained powers for a district heating scheme. On Wednesday we shall be discussing that subject in connection with the Bill the rejection of which I am moving. That Debate will raise the issue in a more satisfactory form. The Westminster City Council obtained certain powers two years ago in connection with some flats, along the Embankment I think, very nearly on the other side of the river from the Battersea Power Station. I understand that there are certain technical difficulties about it and that unless they can get powers they cannot proceed. We should have some explanation why, when they got their original Act, they did not make it, in the words that are used in connection with the Royal Assent, a "good and perfect Act of Parliament." I believe that those words only refer to the fact that every court of justice has to regard the Measure as such.
In Clause 30 there is a strange thing, which I do not understand, I cannot read this Bill. The side notice to the Clause says:
Cesser of payments in respect of chimney fires, etc.
It is a strange Clause. It refers to Section 60 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1934, which relates to payments in cases of fires in chimneys or ducts, and it says that that Section is hereby to be repealed. Then it goes on to say in subsection (2):
The Council shall be deemed always to have had power either generally or in such cases as they thought fit to remit the payments which they were entitled to demand or recover under the said Section 60.
I take it that they have had some trouble and that they are trying to validate that trouble by legislation after the event.

There may be some restrospective significance. I observe that some members of the London County Council, who are more numerous here at the moment than they are at County Hall, are shaking their heads. If the Clause has not some retrospective effect why should those words be put in?
Clause 31 is in respect of the service of summonses. I am a little surprised at it. I should have thought that the service of summonses was a matter for general legislation and was not very appropriate to a Private Bill like this.
I come to another very strange Clause, 35, which appears to me to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1948. I should have thought that was a very solemn and respectable kind of Act which was essentially the province of the House of Commons in its general capacity and which was passed under the inspiration of the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary. The Act ought not to call for Amendment by the London County Council. I should have thought that the Lord President of the Council would have been sufficiently careful that when he was not here his supporters would know which is North Battersea and which is South Battersea. The object of Clause 35 is to make it quite clear what is North Battersea and what is South Battersea. Again that suggests the Festival of Britain, but I hope not.
I come on to a rather meaty Clause, 36, which is designed to authorise all the London Boroughs to run commercial laundries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not the slightest doubt that the Labour Party would be glad to have some convenient, municipalised institution in which to wash their dirty linen. That I can quite understand, but possibly that is not the purpose of the Clause. They need to use the rates of London. I am a ratepayer and I think I pay rather too much in rates. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to run municipal laundries which will engage in competition with private individuals. Suppose they suffer losses? Borough councils nearly always suffer losses.
Nearly every municipal undertaking is a flop, even when it has a complete monopoly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes it is. We set up a municipalised London transport organisation in London and it ran from 1934 until the other day.


It was passed by a rather piebald Government and was part of the inheritance brought along by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. J. R. Thomas when they came out of the Labour Government and entered the National Government. I opposed the Bill at every stage. The result is that Londoners have paid more for their fares than anybody else in the country. That was a semi-nationalised, semimunicipalised undertaking. I do not respect these undertakings. These laundries will not be a monopoly. They will be in competition with private laundries, and they will be bound to lose money. The ratepayers of London will have to make up the loss. Clause 36 is thoroughly bad.
For all these various reasons the Bill ought to have the most careful scrutiny before it gets a Second Reading. I think that the hon. Member who was returned for one of the salubrious parts of Clapham is now going to explain what the Bill does.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What does the hon. Member mean by "salubrious"? Does that imply a reflection upon Kennington?

Sir H. Williams: Obviously I referred to Clapham, which will be even better when they have got the dump off the common. The hon. Member may want to make a few observations which will simplify our proceedings tonight, and therefore I will not occupy any more of the time of the House.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I can assure the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that although I have moved from Kennington to Clapham I am quite as happy in Clapham as I was in Kennington, and I do not regard one as being better or more salubrious than the other. They both have horrible slums, among other things. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, will not expect me to go into any detail in dealing with all the Clauses which he has mentioned. I will say, however, that Clause 12 seeks to enable better use to be made of our parks for the entertainment of the people of London, and I should not have thought that that would have any strong opposition.
The Clause relating to properties in Westminster is concerned with a district heating scheme. Westminster and other boroughs in London are very anxious to see a large-scale experiment carried out. I know from my own experience that Westminster has done its very best to meet the objections which were originally made against pipes being carried through the property mentioned in the Clause. With regard to chimney fires under Clause 30, the hon. Member will be glad to know that if he has a fire in future and the fire brigade put it out for him, they will not charge him.
On the whole, I regard the Bill as a good one. As the hon. Member for Croydon, East, said, it contains some matters which the London County Council have found in the course of their day to day experience to be necessary for the more effective carrying out of their functions and duties, and most people will not object to that. It is also true that some of the borough councils have asked for certain additional powers so that they may more effectively carry out their task of efficiently governing London and providing what I hope will be better conditions generally for the ratepayers of London.
A similar Bill to this comes up every year, as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, said. I believe that to be a good thing because it permits the fullest possible ventilation and discussion of different points of view. Even though we may disagree, it is worth while having such matters discussed. I understand that one or two petitions have been entered against the Bill and I am advised that there should be no difficulty in meeting, during the Committee stage, the points which the various petitioners have raised. I give an assurance on behalf of the London County Council that everything possible, consistent with the carrying out of the objects of the Bill, will be done to meet the petitioners.
I now come to Clause 36, which I admit has stirred up most criticism and opposition. I think it is a good Clause. I must express a personal view on this. It is a logical development of the powers which local authorities all over the country have been given under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Act of last year. Incidentally, the Manchester Corporation already have the kind of


powers for which the London borough councils are asking. That does not necessarily mean that the London boroughs ought to have those powers, but it is evidence that the House has considered the matter in the past and granted such powers to Manchester.
I cannot help wondering why people who believe in competition so strongly should object to a little more competition of this kind, but they do, and as the sponsors of the Bill are very anxious to get the rest of the Bill through and would not want to endanger its progress by insisting on Clause 36, they will be prepared to withdraw that Clause in Committee. I ought to add that they retain the right to introduce the Clause either in this form or in an amended form in any future Bill which they may introduce. However, to facilitate public business and to meet the objections, which some of us find rather difficult to understand, they will withdraw the Clause. I hope that with that undertaking the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow all the other matters, which I believe to be capable of adjustment, to be dealt with in Committee.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I cannot let this occasion pass without saying on behalf of many Metropolitan Boroughs that there is very great regret that it has been decided to sacrifice Clause 36 to meet those who have petitioned against it. I know that it is not the personal wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington—

Mr. Gibson: Salubrious Clapham.

Mr. Mellish: I beg his pardon—the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) to sacrifice the Clause. My own borough regards it as a tragedy. We believe that we were ready and equipped to do a good job of work for our people. I should have thought that the people in the laundry business as a commercial undertaking would have welcomed competition because they would have had an opportunity to prove conclusively that they could do the job better than the local authorities. I should have thought that provision could have been made that the service should be self-supporting and not maintained by the rates.
My constituency, Bermondsey, has had a laundry service for 100 years. It was

instituted by the Conservative Party of that day. I have looked at the records and I find that the mayor of Bermondsey was a Conservative, and in introducing the scheme he talked about the great need for the laundry service and prayed that the people would use it. Today we are still restricted from doing what we believe to be the fundamental duty of an authority in this matter, that is, collecting and delivering. I do not know what experience the hon. Member for Croydon. East (Sir H. Williams) has had. He speaks about Bills which he cannot read and cannot understand and says that if he cannot understand them, he always votes against them. It seems to me that much depends upon the intelligence of the person reading the Bill.
There are hundreds of people in Bermondsey who cannot afford to send their laundry to commercial laundries. We have gone into the figures very carefully, and we estimate that 75 per cent. of the people of my borough cannot afford to send their laundry to commercial laundries. Last year, by means of perambulators and so on, 62,000 people pushed their laundry through the streets of Bermondsey to our own public laundry—by law we are not allowed to collect or deliver the laundry—and we put that laundry through our machines and they waited and carried it home. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, approves of that. He says we are now entering into competition. I will give him some figures about competition and economic prices which he ought to have known before he made that argument.
The cost today for the completed laundry of a family of five is estimated by my council to be about £1 a week. In Bermondsey that represents one-sixth of the average income. The average price of the commercial firms for "bagwash," as we term it—the "posh" name is "hydrocleaning"—is 2s. 3 ½. for 17 lbs. My council are doing hydro-cleaning at 1s. 9d. for 28 lbs. Consequently we say that we should be allowed to collect and deliver this laundry in our own vans, but we are denied the right to do that because of petitions. Petitions by whom? People who already have a monopoly of it: people who will not allow councils like my own to go into competition. I say in this House that it is despicable and deplorable that we are denied this right.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I apologise for intervening in a London County Council matter, and I do so not because I am concerned with the merits or demerits of this Bill, but because it represents legislative procedure at its worst. I deplore it when I find petitions against Private Bills. I thought there was a tender interest on the benches opposite for the rights of local authorities. I have heard speech after speech about the attitude of this Government, which hon. Members opposite say is taking away the powers of the local authorities. Here is an instance of the largest local authority in the country putting into a Bill the things which it feels it ought to have power to do, and this is the place in which the legislation of this land ought to be determined. But, of course, under this procedure it is not being determined in this House, because someone who has a vested interest in opposing a certain piece of legislation, petitions against the Bill.
I object to the House of Commons having no right in this matter. In view of the arrangement reached between the sponsors of the Bill and the petitioners, this question has been removed from the ambit of this House, and therefore we cannot now determine whether this is a good bill or a bad Bill. That is bad practice. It is a shocking business. I am sorry that the London County Council have acquiesced in this—[An HON. MEMBER: "They had to do it."]—but I realise that they had to do this or they would not get the Bill. It is either having 75 per cent. of what they want or nothing at all.

Mr. Shurmer: A condition of sale.

Mr. Poole: It is blackmail, and I hope that soon this House will review its procedure in connection with Private Bills. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of deciding these issues here in this House; not at the back of the Chair or in some room in the precincts of Westminster where petitioners and sponsors of the Bills are brought together and some common bargaining is done as to whether Clause I shall stand or Clause 2. It is bad legislation, it is bad for the country, and I am sorry that in this House the London County Council have had to give way.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in which he stated the case of the London County Council. I understand that the National Joint Council of Chiropodists are disturbed about the contents of Clause 32. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to me whether paragraph (a)—
requiring persons carrying on establishments for massage or special treatment to make scales of the fees …
and to put them on display will apply to all kinds of different professions. Will the dentists, for instance, come under the heading of special treatment? Since I know that a petition has been lodged, I will leave it there, hoping that those responsible for the Bill will give due consideration to the case of the chiropodists, who do not want to feel that they are losing professional status in this regard.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Perry Bar (Mr. Poole). I also much regret that those who represent the London County Council in this House have felt it necessary as a result of the petitions presented, to withdraw Clause 36 in Committee. I realise that on this occasion it is too late for any of us in this House to do anything about it, but I hope that the L.C.C. will pursue their attempt to obtain powers for the Metropolitan Boroughs of London to provide these laundry facilities. I hope they will include a Clause to this effect in their General Powers Bill next year, and so give this House an opportunity of dealing with it on its merits.
Furthermore, I hope that we may find some other opportunity in this House. Earlier today we had a discussion about Private Members' time. This is precisely the kind of thing which, if the opportunity were available for Private Members' Bills, might usefully be a subject for testing opinion in the House.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The hon. Member supported the Government.

Mr. Fletcher: I supported the Government on the hon. Member's Amendment but I have no doubt that, if this subject were left to a free vote of the


House, and if the L.C.C. were not placed in the situation of having to surrender this Clause to make sure of carrying the whole Bill, it would ensure local authorities being given these powers. There is a wide demand not only among the people of Bermondsey, but in my own borough of Islington and other London boroughs that local authorities should have power to provide these laundry facilities. These are precisely the powers which a municipal authority should have. Nowadays a great many powers of one kind or another are being taken away from local authorities, but this is precisely the kind of function which they are well equipped to carry out, and could carry out, to the great advantage of their citizens. I hope, therefore, that the L.C.C. will pursue their attempt to give the Metropolitan Boroughs these powers.

7.27 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am glad to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). As to the references to petitions, I was totally unaware that this point was mentioned in the Debate. I was not aware that any petition had been presented against this Bill. The decision of my hon. Friends and myself to oppose it was taken before the General Election when I was not a Member of Parliament. I have had no communication with any body other than communications with Members of Parliament and the correspondence I had with the agents acting on behalf of the L.C.C. So all the reference to petitions has no reference to the actions taken by my hon. Friends and myself in this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — PART-TIME NATIONAL SERVICE

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th March, 1950, entitled the National Service (Part-time Service) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 308), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Debate upon this Motion was interrupted to per

mit a genial discussion about what should be done with dirty linen in the County of London, I was on the point which I think is the point of greatest substance on this Motion. The Minister of Labour was then present and was taking a note of the matter. This is now in the possession of his Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on being about to make his debut from the Box. I would add to those congratulations my own pleasure that he is likely to be able to do so upon, a not particularly controversial occasion.
The point of substance arises under Regulation 3 which deals with the procedure to be followed when a man is dismissed by his employer who wants to get rid of him because he does not like his part-time National Service obligations. The right of the man to proceed is given to him by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948. What seems to me objectionable is that under these regulations the aggrieved man must, subject to the right of the chairman of the reinstatement committee to grant further time, put in his claim within 42 days. That is a very rigid and narrow limitation, and it seems to be quite inappropriate where, as here, the remedy which the man will claim is, not reinstatement, but damages or, as it is called in the regulations, compensation.
If the man were to sue his employer at law on grounds of wrongful dismissal he would have, under the prevailing Limitation Acts, six years in which to bring his proceedings, unless he had the misfortune to sue a public authority, in which case the period would be one year. Against that, in this particular case he is limited to 42 days, and some hardship may very well arise if this is insisted upon. It is difficult even for hon. Members to be fully conversant with the law, which is changed with the assistance of some 3,000 statutory instruments a year, and it is really quite absurd to expect that every man performing part-time service under the Act will know within 42 days that he has these rights.
I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman when he replies will say that notices informing them of these rights are given to the men. I hope and believe that that is the case. But it is quite a different thing for a man to be given a notice and to make quite sure that he


will read and understand it. I cannot see why it is necessary to limit the period during which he can put in his claim for these damages to the very narrow period of 42 days. I do not think that that gives him time to inform himself of the matter and, perhaps, to take legal advice. There may be some explanation which the hon. Gentleman will give, but in the absence of such an explanation this provision seems to me to be objectionable.
There are other parts of the Regulations which I would venture to criticise, not so much for what they do but for the obscurity as to what they are intended to do. In particular I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to regulation 5 (b) (i), which deals with what is to happen to the contractual relations of employer and employee when they are interfered with by the National Service obligation of the latter. This provision seeks, quite properly, to relieve the parties to the contract of employment of
obligation under the contract …
relating to
payment or remuneration, the performance of work, or the provision of work, maintenance (including medical or surgical treatment) or instruction.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what remains. The only thing I can think of is pension rights. It is a little difficult to speculate as to what other things remain under the contract, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary, with the resources of his Department behind him, will be able to give the answer.
Sub-paragraphs (b) (ii) and (iii) of the same Regulation are a trifle confusing. Sub-paragraph (ii), as far as I can understand it, seeks to provide that where a contract is for a definite period and is interrupted by National Service, it shall be prolonged for the same period as the period of the interruption. On a closer reading, however, there appear to be two alternative possibilities, and I cannot understand clearly what is the difference between those two alternatives. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear this up.
I am equally not at all clear as to what evil paragraph (2) of regulation 5 is designed to provide against. It says:
Nothing in this Regulation shall confer rupon any employer authority to make any

contract or arrangement with reference to the period of training which he is not authorised to make under any power already possessed by him.
What is contemplated there? On reading the Regulation I cannot see any provision which could possibly provide for any additional power being thereby conferred upon an employer. I cannot see what evil it is intended to guard against. No doubt those who draft these Regulations had something in mind when they inserted this paragraph. Perhaps, therefore, it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up also.
Those are the principal points, and I should like to make one general comment. It is extremely important when regulations of this sort are being made that they should not only be just, but that they should be comprehensible. They are designed to be understood by a large number of men, most of them in the nature of things young men and without that knowledge of procedure and drafting of regulations and Acts of Parliament which is forced upon hon. Members in this House in greater or lesser degree as the years pass. I think that those hon. Members who have the regulations in front of them will agree that even to them there are passages whose intention and purport are not immediately obvious.
It would, therefore, serve a very useful purpose if the Parliamentary Secretary would not only explain them to the House, but would take such steps as are possible to secure that they are clearly explained to those affected by them. Quite frankly, the explanatory note at the back of the regulations is no clearer to me than are the regulations. It gives admirably their general intention. It does not give with any precision their detailed effect, and for this reason a useful purpose will be served, not only by an explanation to this House, but by an explanation to the men affected.
Finally, I come to the general point which I wish to raise. I do not think the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will dispute that it is right that at this time, when part-time service on a compulsory basis will shortly come into effect, this House should have the opportunity to debate these Regulations. I have sought to discuss them in a friendly and interrogatory way. I make no apology, nor do my hon. Friends,


for putting down the Motion, since the importance of the matter is such that it seems to me quite wrong that these Regulations should take effect without this House of Commons, on whose authority they are based, having the opportunity to discuss them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg formally to second the Motion.

7.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) presented the Motion, and I apologise for not having been in my place when he started his speech. It seems to me that the whole point in his speech was not to challenge the substance of the Regulations which have been laid before the House by my right hon. Friend, but rather to get questions of detail—which, I agree, may be of importance—put more clearly to the House.
The first point which the hon. Member raised related to paragraph (4) of Regulation 1. He seemed to be under the impression that to include these words in the Regulation was to give my right hon. Friend a free hand in altering substantially the content of the form referred to, without having to come back to this House in order to do so. I assure him that is not the case. If there were to be any substantial alteration in the form, it would be incumbent upon my right hon. Friend to come to this House for permission to alter it. Actually he has in mind that it may be necessary to alter, say, the numbering of the form, or it may be necessary to alter the order of the questions laid down in the form. It is on questions of that type that my right hon. Friend wants a free hand, but, if there were to be any substantial alteration, any substantial difference in the form, he would have to return to this House for permission so to alter it.
There is perhaps an even more important aspect, and I am sure this point will appeal to the hon. Member, that by leaving the wording as it now is my right hon. Friend could accept a written application from the individual, without it necessarily being upon the form, so long as the written application contained the essential matter which is in the form.

That gives greater liberty to the person concerned. He may feel he is freer than if he had to lay the form itself and if any failure to do so would mean that he would be disqualified. The hon. Member will agree that in that way we are giving greater freedom to the person concerned and it is necessary that these words should remain.
This is not by any means a new provision in Regulations. A like provision has appeared in other Regulations, not necessarily connected with this Ministry. For example, it appears in the National Service (Miscellaneous) Regulations and in the Re-instatement in Civil Employment (Procedure) Regulations, which have been approved by Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that, far from arguing for any wider powers, my right hon. Friend is, on the contrary, safeguarding the interests of those who will make the applications and is fortified by the precedents I have described.
I do not think the hon. Member raised any specific point upon Regulation 2, which prescribes the manner in which a man can apply for the cancellation or variation of a notice specifying his liability for part-time service, either on the ground that he is not liable to do any part-time service, or that he is liable to do a shorter period than that specified, in the notice. I turn to Regulation 3. The House will be aware that Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, provides that if an employer terminates the employment of an employee solely, or mainly, because of his liability to perform part-time service, the employee is, entitled to recover as compensation from his employer a sum not exceeding five weeks pay.
The hon. Member has raised the question of the time factor in making the application. I know that in the last analysis these questions are a matter of opinion. My right hon. Friend and believe that the time given, six weeks, is quite a generous period. It was made as long as six weeks to allow for the possibility of the young man concerned not being able to attend to this matter until after he had come back from his period of training, a period which cannot exceed three weeks. The House will be aware that in addition to the six weeks-we propose, the chairman of the reinstatement committee has the option in


exceptional cases, such as illness, to grant an extension beyond six weeks. I believe that proviso will be used generously when exceptional cases come before a committee.
I wish the House to note particularly that the period laid down in the 1948 Act within which a man may apply for reinstatement after his whole-time service has been completed is before the second Monday after the end of his service—in other words, a period between a week and a fortnight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely there is all the difference in the world between having a short time limit when a man is asked to be reinstated in a job and this case where it is merely a question of going for damages?

Mr. Lee: Apart from exceptional cases, such as sickness, I do not see any particular reason why a man cannot determine his rights and make his application within a period of six weeks, especially with the proviso that the chairman of the committee has the right to extend the period beyond six weeks. I agree that it is a question of opinion, but I believe the six weeks is ample for our purpose.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said is quite contrary to the policy of Parliament over a great many years in providing a much longer period of years of limitation, up to six years in the case of private employers?

Mr. Lee: This is a man who has been dismissed by an employer. He has a six weeks period in which to put his case that the reason for his dismissal is in connection with his call up for part-time service. I believe that the six weeks period, especially when we consider that on return to civil life the man will go to the labour exchange and can be informed, if he does not know, of this provision, is ample security, especially as the six weeks limitation is not dogmatic in the sense that there can be no extension. If the man can prove that for some good reason, or a reason seeming good to the chairman of the committee, he could not have made his application within six weeks, the six weeks would not be considered final.
Regulation 4 simply lays down that the procedure to be followed by a reinstatement committee in connection with such an application and procedure in connection with appeals to the umpire on such applications shall, subject to necessary adjustments, be precisely the same as procedure in connection with applications for reinstatement. The hon. Member referred to Regulation 5. This is designed to secure in a commonsense way the fair adjustment of contracts of service, or apprenticeship, affected by call up for annual training. That training cannot exceed 21 days in one year and will normally be for a period of two weeks. In its broad effect it means that the employee and the employer who have made arrangements between themselves to deal with any or all the points arising can maintain those agreements. In other words, that would supervene over any of these regulations. Where, however, there is no arrangement catering for such a contingency as the calling up of a person for two or three weeks for part-time service, these Regulations would obtain.
We relieve the contracting parties of the obligations under any contract relating either to the performance of work, the payment of remuneration, the provision of work, the provision of maintenance, including medical or surgical treatment, or the provision of instruction. In the cases in which the contract is for a fixed period the period of the contract is extended by the period of training, or, where the contract is due to terminate during the period of training, by a period equal to so much of the period of the contract as was unexpired at the beginning of training. That extension naturally has to be treated as beginning when the contract would otherwise come to an end.
I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has not sought to impose restrictions in any way. He has consulted both sides of industry on these Regulations before laying them before the House. For instance, he sought the advice of the National Joint Advisory Council on the contents of these Regulations. I am sure it would please the House to know that both sides of that council, which as we know contains eminent men both from the employers' and employees' sides of industry, having considered these regulations in great detail at their meetings, have given them their approval. I hope that I have covered the main points which


have been raised tonight. Having done so, I trust that the House will agree to these Regulations.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I wish first to offer our felicitations to the Parliamentary Secretary on having successfully negotiated his first and rather tricky hurdle. I do not think that the Ministry, for which I have, as he knows, a strong affection, has been quite so clever as usual in the wording of their Explanatory Note. I find the Regulations themselves more easy to understand than the explanatory note, but that is by the way. I should like further to congratulate the hon. Member because he has moved his constituency to that of our old friend in this House, Sir Robert Young, of whom all of us on both sides of the House were very fond. As it happens to be a constituency which my grandfather fought in the Liberal interest 70 years ago and was very properly defeated each time by the Conservatives, I have a personal interest in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke about Regulation 3 and the period of six weeks in which the applicant had to make his application for compensation for wrongful dismissal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Ministry should watch this matter, and, if at any time it was found that six weeks was too short a period, should not hesitate to come to the House and ask for an extension.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): indicated assent.

Mr. McCorquodale: I have no further comments to make on these Regulations, which are designed to meet an obvious need. I conclude by again wishing the hon. Gentleman well, especially in the valuable non-controversial parts of his work at the Ministry, in which I know he will find enjoyment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view in particular of the assurance given physically by the vertical movements of the Parliamentary Secretary's head, in conjunction with similar movements by his right hon. Friend, that the serious point of substance in connection with Regulation 3 will be watched, and in view of the most lucid explanation of the Regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — RESTAURANT CARS (NON-SMOKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

7.55 p.m.

Miss Burton: It is obvious to me, as a very new Member of this House, bearing in mind the happenings of last week and the time at which this Adjournment Motion has been reached tonight, that anything can happen. When I came here today hon. Members much more senior than I greeted me with the cheerful news that the Adjournment might not be reached until about one or two o'clock tomorrow morning. I am glad that I have been much more fortunate, and I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for having been kind enough to come to the House at this time.
When I looked at the various subjects down for the Adjournment at the time I put down my own, it seemed to me that mine was very secondary to the others in importance. But I realise that this House stands for the fair treatment of minorities and that this country is noted throughout the world for its treatment of minorities. I believe that no Minister minds coming to the House even to listen to a back bencher talking on a topic if he feels that the matter is of interest to people in this country.
I wish to raise the matter of the provision of accommodation for non-smokers in restaurant cars in this country. I wish to ask whether there is any reason why this country or this House, which is so generous in its treatment of all minorities, should ignore the minority of nonsmokers who certainly do exist in this country. I ought to be honest and declare that I have a vested interest because I am a non-smoker, and I believe that we notice things when they affect ourselves. In the short time I have been in this House hon. Members have accorded, I will not say generous, but at least some, consideration to the people of the minority to which I belong. In the Strangers' Dining Room there are notices requesting people not to smoke until one-thirty p.m. In the Members' Tea Room there is a small section reserved for nonsmokers. I have even found, in the Library of this House, a small section where smoking is not allowed, and where,


I would hasten to add, I have never yet seen anyone smoking.
We are not allowed to smoke in this Chamber. I am too new to this House to know the derivation of that rule but it might be, presumably, that you, Mr. Speaker, could not see what was happening or that it would be difficult to speak in a smoky atmosphere. There is another possible reason. I have been informed that in cinemas the amount of light which is lost in the smoke of the audience, if I may use that term, is 25 per cent. of the total amount, and that films therefore lose 25 per cent. of the illumination necessary for viewing. It might well be that in this House hon. Members would fail to catch your eye, Sir, if we lost 25 per cent. of the light which was necessary.
It would not be proper for a very new back bencher to be too optimistic, but I hope that the Minister will tonight be able to make some concession, as I am being very reasonable. I am not asking for legislation, which on the Adjournment would be out of Order. I am not asking him to introduce new rolling stock on the railways. I am not asking him to increase expenditure, nor will what I propose impose upon him additional labour. It seems to me that in the light of that nice train of reasons the Minister could not but relent towards our cause.
How large is this minority in this country? I have tried very hard to find out, but I have not got very far in that matter. I can only inform my right hon. Friend, as I expect he knows, that on 31st July, 1947, the then Chairman of the Railway Executive said that the railways considered that 80 to 85 per cent. of passengers were smokers. Therefore, only 15 per cent. of the accommodation was given to non-smokers. If we accept those figures the question I wish to pose to the right hon. Gentleman is: what is 15 per cent. of the total number of passengers carried by the railways? I pursued the matter to the Transport Commission, who have been most helpful, and we tried to find the number of passengers carried in 1949. That did not get us very far; the number was just short of a billion. I learned that does not necessarily mean that that number of tickets was bought. If a passenger broke his journey two or three times, he would rank as two or three passengers. So I do not feel that

that is a good enough case to present to my right hon. Friend.
We therefore return to the matter of restaurant cars. I am informed that in 1948 10 million meals were served in restaurant cars on the railways; the number has, of course, increased in 1949 as more restaurant cars were added. But I am prepared to make an under-statement. Let us deal with the 10 million meals in 1948 and find 15 per cent. of 10 million. I hope I am right, but I make it 1½ million. Therefore, 15 per cent. of these 10 million meals is 1½ million meals. Therefore, 1½ million meals, on the very conservative estimate put by the Railway Executive, must have been eaten by non-smokers—and I appreciate, in case the Minister corrects me, that somebody may have eaten more than one meal.
When it began to leak out that I had been lucky and drawn this Adjournment, one or two people rang me up to ask whether I was demanding more accommodation for non-smokers in these restaurant cars. I said I was not, but that I was merely asking for some accommodation. But I have been informed since then by one or two hon. Members that that was being a little unjust to the right hon. Gentleman, and that on one or two trains this does exist; on the Pullman cars between Leeds and London in the third-class part I did find a small section for non-smokers; and one hon. Member told me today that on a train in which he travelled, the right hon. Gentleman had labelled part of it non-smoking—but had thoughtfully provided ash trays as well to go on the tables. I use the train from Euston to Birmingham which goes through Coventry and which generally leaves Euston at 4.30. If we take 17th March and 24th March of this year, both Fridays, there were on that train—because I counted them—four dining cars; two first-class and two third-class. In each of those four dining cars there were doors which could have been drawn across to separate the cars; but in none of those four dining cars was there any non-smoking accommodation.
I went on the Euston to Birmingham train on 5th March, which was a Sunday. The train left Euston at 11.15. I went into the dining car, and thought I should be lucky and that the heart of my right


hon. Friend would have melted in this particular case. There was one small section where there were four tables, and with doors across. But that small section also was for smokers, and I had to sit and be smoked over all the time. I therefore hope very much that my right hon. Friend will bear these facts in mind because, being selfish, I am not primarily concerned with those who have got nonsmoking facilities elsewhere. I am mainly concerned with those trains which I have to use and which have not those facilities.
Perhaps I ought to mention also that in the past when one travelled on the Metropolitan Railway in the London area and the old Southern Region Railway, if one wanted to sit in a non-smoker one could not read because one had to sit over the wheels and be so rocked that it was impossible to do anything at all. All non-smoking carriages are stuck over the wheels. I am told that last year the Transport Commission did relent in one case and put a non-smoking car on a Pullman train on the Southern Region. I do not know whether it was heaping coals of fire on the heads of the people who had objected, but they put the nonsmoking car next to the engine where it got all the smoke.
When one is lucky enough to draw an Adjournment, one does receive a number of letters. I have received a good many, and I do not think that they have all come from cranks. Some have come from doctors who say that it really is injurious for people to have to travel in smoke all the time. I have also heard from people who hoped that it would be in order to ask that in non-smoking compartments the Minister would ask that his staff should please see that is no smoking. So in the matter of health and fair play in the treatment of minorities, and in the selfish interests of myself, who have to use these trains, I ask that a small amount of non-smoking accommodation be provided in the restaurant cars in this country.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Carson: There is very little left to say after the admirable speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). This may seem rather a small point, but I do not think that it is quite so small as it would appear. The hon. Lady made a very good case for the people who object to smoking

in restaurant cars on trains. In my view it does not matter so much whether the majority of people who travel in trains and eat in restaurant cars object to smoking at meals or not. The fact does remain that it inconveniences some, and I may even say nauseates those who have to eat their meals on a train. I can speak without being biased or accused of being a crank, because I am a very heavy smoker indeed. I do not mind smoking myself at a meal. For some reason the smell of my own smoke does not nauseate me, but the smell of other people's smoke which is blown over me does. Therefore, I think one must not be selfish, but see that people can eat a meal under the conditions they would normally like to have.
On certain main line trains in this country I believe there is a rule, as there is in this House, that up to a certain time one cannot smoke, or one is asked to refrain from smoking; but that rule is broken far too often. Smoking does take place in between courses and at the end of a meal. Surely the remedy is quite simple. People who want to smoke after a mea—and I, personally, very much like to smoke immediately after it—can go back to the ordinary carriages and smoke. I see no reason why people should smoke in a restaurant car. There is no reason why they should not go out. It would be difficult to divide a restaurant car into smoking and non-smoking compartments. I do not think it is necessary to smoke in any part of a restaurant car, and it is quite easy for people to go back to their original carriage and smoke there; and allow other people to come into the restaurant car for a meal.
Even if one smokes during the first lunch on a restaurant car, and there are sliding doors across, those doors would be left open; and smoke fumes would get into the other part of the car and prove disagreeable to those people who do not like smoking. The hon. Lady made a strong case, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet it. I seem to recall a year or two ago seeing a photograph of him sitting in a non-smoking carriage on the underground in London with a cigarette in his mouth—

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): A pipe.

Mr. Carson: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; it was a pipe. I hope


he will not let that influence his decision. I hope he will give consideration to this problem. It may appear a minor one, but it is nevertheless important to many people, and I hope that he will treat it seriously.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: I see some form of unholy alliance between the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). The hon. Gentleman has been a strong opponent of blood sports, but in this case he is helping the hon. Lady to harry her prey, which for the purposes of the Debate tonight is the smoker, and it is for freedom for the smoker that I appeal tonight against the encroachments of the hon. Lady. The proposition she has made, if it were practical, I am sure would meet with the approval of every hon. Member, but in fact it is hopelessly unpractical, as I am sure the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet knows full well.
I believe that the Railway Executive are doing a magnificent job. The improvement in the fare and in the facilities in restaurant cars is a clear indication of a new efficiency which has been brought to bear since nationalisation. But there remains the same tremendously difficult task still to be performed every day. At all times it is most difficult to serve meals in trains, because of the movement in the carriages and the difficulty of negotiating corridors, and so on. I think that the hon. Lady would agree that it is not as easy to serve a meal in a train as it is to serve a meal in a restaurant, and in this connection I should like to ask her whether she would be prepared to go to any restaurant in London, Coventry, Birmingham or elsewhere, and suggest to the management that they should reserve a portion of their restaurant for nonsmokers or that they should draw across some form of screen or partition to segregate those people who enjoy tobacco from those who do not.

Mr. Carson: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that a railway restaurant car is far more confined than a restaurant, however small?

Mr. Lewis: The space in a restaurant car is more limited, I agree, but a restaurant car is not used only for the serving of meals. For part of the journey, it is

used for ordinary railway seating purposes. In the circumstances, it is hopelessly unpractical to suggest that some form of segregation should be instituted. But we must bear in mind the physical rolling stock deficiencies and the tendency, which we understand is now in the minds of those responsible for the provision of restaurant facilities, towards the open coach similar to that used in America where segregation is impossible.
One should be able to rely upon the good will and the good sense of people who travel by rail in the same way as one has to rely on them in restaurant rooms in the House of Commons. People who read their menus will see that travellers are requested not to smoke before or during a meal. This should be impressed upon travellers more effectively. I think that the Minister would do well to advise the Hotels' Executive that it is the general opinion in this House that where certain restrictions on smoking can be imposed at certain times they should be imposed more rigorously. Nobody would object to this proposal, but I suggest that to argue that there should be segregation at present in railway compartments, taking into account the rolling stock position, is unpractical, although I admire the courage of my hon. Friend in raising this matter on behalf of non-smoking women and men.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, but I was moved by what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) and I feel compelled to try to answer what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). His case rested on the fact that it was physically unpractical to introduce the segregation for which the hon. Lady asked; but that is not so. I travel a great deal on the railway to which the hon. Lady referred. Before the war the restaurant cars on that line were divided into smokers and non-smokers. The same stock is used today and it is perfectly practicable to confine non-smokers to the smaller part of the coach. The non-smoker contained about four tables and the smoker contained 12 or 15. There is no reason why non-smokers should not be allowed the use of that part of the coach which they used before the war.

Mr. J. Lewis: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that before the war both the non-smoking and the smoking compartments were rarely full, because there was a large amount of unemployment and bad conditions generally and many travellers were unable to take advantage of the restaurant car facilities? Today the situation is different and there is a greater demand than ever before for facilities of this kind.

Mr. Grimston: I do not want to introduce politics into this Debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is stretching the point a little. Before the war there were smoking and non-smoking compartments in the restaurant cars. The same cars run 'today. During the war there was a relaxation of the rules and people were allowed to smoke in all compartments. Since the war the restriction has been reimposed, and those people who do not like to smoke are now able to find one smoke-free compartment in each carriage. Although I was a heavy smoker at one time, the machinations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have caused a change in my habits. I much appreciate being able to find a compartment in which people have not been smoking. In the same way, it would be possible to restrict smokers to the larger part of the restaurant car and to leave the smaller part for those people who do not like to have smoke puffed over them at meals or, even worse, to find the dying stub of a cigarette when they come in for second service. This is thoroughly revolting, to some of us, and I think that the hon. Lady has done a real service by raising the matter tonight.

8.17 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Many of us have listened with a feeling of dismay particularly to words like "offensive" and "revolting," and some must have wondered how we could have grown up to be so callous and indifferent to the sensibilities of the minority of our population. It is desirable to look at this problem not from the point of view of our own feelings or emotions, but from the medical angle. We should try to find some excuse for our revolting and disgusting habits. First, we must ask why we smoke and, particularly, why we want to smoke after a meal. Indeed, some people enjoy a cigarette between courses, especially when travelling on

trains or sitting in restaurants when eating is a function other than merely consuming a certain amount of calories, proteins, fats and carbo-hydrates. There are very real reasons for this and I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) will bear with me when I try to explain why it is that we fall into this habit.
It is well known that in our modern age of hurry and bustle we tend to eat rather quickly. We are becoming more dyspeptic. I think that roughly 15 per cent. of our folk are the subjects of peptic ulceration or minor forms of dyspepsia. It may be that these are the 15 per cent. who do not smoke. It is impossible to prove a point like that without further research. I hope that the Railway Executive will liaison with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Food to consider some combined research so that we shall discover the true position.
There is one point that cannot be denied. It is a well-known fact that, when one takes a meal, whether it is a test meal or a normal meal—I know from my own case, and because I did much research work on this subject as a student—to smoke one cigarette or pipe immediately afterwards affects the process of digestion. The time that it takes the stomach itself to empty is doubled in most cases, and, even in a normal case, is very considerably prolonged. It is that feeling of great ease and comfort which comes to people through smoking, and particularly if the food is unpalatable or unseasoned. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) agrees with me. The other feature is that the amount of free hydrochloric acid in those who have a tendency to disorder—those who are dyspeptic and have a feeling of tension—is doubled in those who smoke after a meal.
It is a delusion that we smoke in order to annoy our fellow men—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or our fellow-travellers."] We smoke, not, as has been suggested, to annoy our fellow travellers, but primarily for the selfish reason that we enjoy it; and because we know it is doing us more good than harm. Lastly, and I want to say this in case the hon. Lady takes any umbrage at what I have been saying; let her consider that the non-smoker is more virtuous than the smoker and gains an unfair advantage over him. One


cannot inhale these volatile fumes from tobacco without a certain amount of carbon monoxide, which I estimate—and it is strange that the percentage is again the same—at 15 per cent. That means that one cannot make an impromptu speech without the most careful preparation, and that it is certainly utterly impossible for us to reach the Front Bench. These facts give the hon. Lady an enormous advantage, and one hopes that she will forgive those of us who assault her sense of smell—which is most important—although those who do not smoke certainly smell trouble almost everywhere they go.

8.24 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I support the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). She, at any rate, has got a case, and I do not think the other speakers had any case at all, except one for disorder and irrelevance.
I think there should be a certain functionalism in life, and this Debate brings back to my memory an incident during the war, when a gallant Colonial soldier, an honorary member of a certain club of which I am a member, sat down at my table. He said, "Do you mind if I smoke?" and produced a large pipe, which he had already filled and prepared immediately to light. I said, "I do not very much mind whether you smoke or not. There is a certain functionalism in British society. We have a room where we eat in this club; we have a room where we write, and that is called the library." I went on through all the other rooms, and I said, "We also have a room where we smoke. This is the breakfast room. I eat breakfast here, but I do not do the other things here."
So I brought home to this gallant, though somewhat ill-informed and inexperienced soldier, the British way of life, and, when so many revolutionary ideas come from hon. Gentlemen who support the Government, this idea, which has come from the hon. Lady, shows that she is standing for a certain decency and order. If decency and order and a certain functionalism are not to be maintained in our society, then it is in a more rapid state of decay and decline than I imagined.
If hon. Members opposite will allow their imagination to run a little further

than I can direct it, they will easily see what sort of a situation we might eventually reach, if this idea of freedom, liberty and licence is to be carried out indefinitely. I feel very strongly about this. I am a smoker. Like Charles Kingsley, I believe that tobacco is the poor man's wealth and the hungry man's food. Many hon. Members will know the quotation from "Westward Ho!" in which tobacco is hailed. I am also an admirer of C. S. Calverley, who wrote admirable lyrics on tobacco, and, though not normally a defender of King James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England, I would mention that he wrote "A Counterblast against Tobacco" I am quite open-minded on this matter, but I think the hon. Lady is right to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the importance of doing one thing at a time in one place.
This House is the only place in the United Kingdom where people are not allowed to smoke. I think it is a distinction which we should like to see extended to other places. I think the theatre is very often made impossible for people by the use of tobacco, and it is an even more remarkable thing that we tolerate smoking in cinemas in this country. In the United States, which has a much greater cinema-going public, it is not allowed. So this little pebble which the hon. Lady has cast into our discussions is not without its importance and value. She has raised her standard against the looseness and carelessness of the attitude to life represented by many hon. Gentlemen opposite and has made a plea for decency and order, to which I hope the Minister will give an encouraging reply.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), should have tried to persuade us to encourage the smoker to the extent that he did with medical terms which, frankly, I found it extremely difficult to understand. I want to reply a little to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). I am a little surprised, considering the large number of people who smoke on the railways, that he should appeal for freedom for the smoker. My experience, especially in travelling on trains between London and


Birmingham, is that the smoker has complete freedom, and that there is just one cloud of smoke all the way through the trains. I do not know, but I should have thought it would have been a good thing to encourage less smoking rather than more smoking—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been trying to do for some time.
I wish that the Minister would consider some course of segregation by compartments, because, as it is, non-smokers frequently have to sit at tables at which other people smoke heavily. There is not in railway restaurant cars the alternative available in many restaurants of going to another table. Frankly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will not take note of the hilarity that has been introduced into this Debate, but will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has said, and of the arguments she has used. She has done a real service in raising this matter on the Adjournment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do something about it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I hesitate to rise for the first time in this House on an occasion of this kind, but at the same time I do wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). I share the view that we do at times seem to be becoming less disciplined than we were, and I think the whole basis of discipline in a democratic society is to ensure that no disservice or hurt is done to our fellows. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a very pertinent question, and one which has not arisen in this discussion. I believe that it is an offence against the by-laws of the former railway companies for a person to smoke in a non-smoking compartment. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how many prosecutions there have been of smokers for smoking in non-smoking compartments. I anticipate that the evidence or statistics that he will supply will, in my view, and in the view of the House, be ample justification for the insistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, on a greater enforcement of those by-laws.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I think my hon. Friend the Member for

Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has rendered a great service tonight in raising this question, and in considering it we have had the pleasure of listening to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever). We are interested to note that in his maiden speech he raises a legal point, thus bringing his profession immediately before the House. We shall, of course, be pleased to hear the reply of my right hon. Friend when he gives the legal points due consideration and supplies the statistics that have been asked for. It has been interesting to hear the arguments adduced by a medical and scientific authority in defence of smoking. I was an exceedingly heavy smoker at one time, but it was the evidence provided by the medical profession that caused me to cease smoking—

Mr. J. Lewis: The Chancellor of the Exchequer helped.

Mr. Viant: —and I am pleased to say that I have never regretted it, except, of course, when I have been endeavouring to have a meal in a restaurant car. I well remember not many years ago making a journey from St. Pancras to Derby and taking a meal on the train when, unfortunately, these was a gentleman who sat opposite and who was smoking a pipe. Soon after I got out at Derby I had to dispose of my meal. The most irksome thing about it was that I had invited him to appreciate the fact that we were in a restaurant car and that he would oblige me if he desisted from smoking. He said, "I have a right to smoke here if I feel so disposed." He entered into a keen argument with me about it, and when we got out at Derby he invited me not only to enjoy his smoking but to engage in a fight.
I mention this in the hope that the House will appreciate that, unfortunately, we become accustomed to habits, and that those habits cause us to be quite indifferent to the convenience and customs of other people. I suggest that, whether we smoke or whether we do not, regard should be paid to the habits of different sections of the community, and provision should be made for smokers and nonsmokers. I see no physical difficulty in that. If when travelling in an ordinary carriage, perhaps with an invalid suffering from asthma, one asks people to


desist from smoking, they say that they will please themselves. We are asking for nothing that is not reasonable, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that in future these regulations will be enforced, and that provision will be made in the restaurant cars so that smokers may enjoy their smoking and non-smokers may be able to eat their meals without annoyance from the smokers.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I have been very intrigued at the suggestions put forward. I have been smoking since I was seven. In those days I could not afford cigarettes, and used to pull up the wild parsnips when they were well dried in the summer and fill them with dried leaves from under the hedge, and they smoked very well. It was a very potent smoke, but it was a very good school in which to graduate, because it enabled one to smoke all the very doubtful stuff that has been on the market in the past few years. We must be tolerant of these unfortunate people who are not like the rest of us, and due provision ought to be made for them.
I was intrigued to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) who, not content with supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has now moved into such close proximity to her. There is always something unusual about a man who has not taken unto himself a wife or a woman who has not taken unto herself a husband. I do not mind these people of unusual tastes; they must be allowed to indulge in their tastes. A strange thing about it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, who generally travels to Birmingham with me, always insists on travelling in a smoking compartment. The poor smokers very often find no seat in the smoking compartments because they are filled with non-smokers, so that some of us have been compelled to get into nonsmoking compartments and surreptitiously have a few draws when the ticket collector is not about.
I think that the Minister ought to cater for all these unusual people; he ought to provide a special coach at the front of the train and label it "Here ride the people who do not smoke, do not drink, do not swear, do not get married, and

do not do any of the things that normal people do." Let us have a carriage for all the abnormal characters; let us have them segregated, and then as the train stops on the journey and they get out we can look at them and try to guess which is it of the things normal people enjoy that they do not do.
I think that the public generally are always very tolerant when there is a non-smoker in a compartment and are prepared to desist from smoking or go out into the corridor. After all, we are catering for a very small percentage of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Fifteen per cent. I am told. I should not imagine that the figure is as high, although if I take the average in my own family perhaps it is a little higher.
I want the Minister to meet the case of these unusual people, but I think that they ought to be segregated. Why not keep them altogether in one place by reserving one compartment with dining facilities at one end of the train? If he does that, I shall feel happier, because I shall know that wherever I sit in the train I shall not be amongst unusual people. I shall be free to smoke and to do all the things that the unusual people do not do.
In any case, I have never claimed any of the special virtues. I did manage not to smoke for eight weeks after I came out of hospital, on one occasion. I lost the desire to smoke. After eight weeks of non-smoking, although I knew that it was in the interest of my health that I should not smoke, my temper was so appalling that I had to force myself to smoke in order to continue living with my wife—or perhaps I should put it the other way and say in order that my wife might continue to live with me. The domestic bliss is now complete in my home, simply because I indulge periodically and fairly heavily in this pernicious weed which has been blamed in this Debate.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I must say that the despatch of Parliamentary Business was such that I was taken by surprise at the early commencement of this Debate. I share with the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) the desire to smoke anything that burns. I must say, however, that the craving is one


which I have only in moderation because when I am confined to cigarettes I never smoke more than eight or nine a day; but that does not blind me to the dire necessity of many non-smokers to keep away from such as the hon. Gentleman and myself when we wish to smoke, especially at meal times.
I think that there is a simple and ready solution to this matter. The situation which arises sometimes in railway restaurant cars remind us of the occasion which, I believe, is now a classic, when a noble Lord from another place was lunching in a railway restaurant car with a lady who, I believe, was a Member of this House. After the first two courses, he brought out his cigar and started to smoke. The lady said, "Do you mind if I eat while you smoke?" The reply was, "All right, if you do it quietly." That is a situation which must, if possible, in the interests of civilised life in Britain, be abolished. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whom we are delighted to see on this occasion in his place, that the ready solution is at hand. Most railway restaurant cars are already divided into first-class and third-class. What has happened to the second-class has, of course, passed into the mists of history.

Sir Herbert Williams: They have joined the Liberal Party.

Mr. Renton: It is unfortunate that there is no Member of the Independent Liberal Party present on this interesting occasion to give us the benefit of the Liberal philosophy. Owing to the fact that restaurant cars are already divided in that way, and owing to the fact that we on this side are aiming at a classless society, whatever may be the views of Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Yes, Sir, we are aiming at a classless society, and the Education Act, 1944, which was piloted through by a Conservative Minister, was a notable step in that direction.
Bearing in mind that we are aiming at a classless society, and that it will therefore be a step in the right direction for us to abolish this distinction between first and third classes, in restaurant cars at any rate, where no extra comfort can be bought for a first-class ticket, I suggest to the Minister that he makes a far better use of the division which already exists in these cars by making one section for non-smokers and the other for smokers.

It would be a prudent step to give the larger section to the smokers because, for better or worse, they are probably in the majority among those who take meals in restaurant cars.
Whatever the personal tastes of Members may be in the matter of tobacco and whatever abhorrence they may feel, they must make up their minds to ensure that justice is done for their fellow-beings. We have to remember that there are those people who suffer from asthma, bronchitis and other forms of ill-health who may be badly upset by tobacco smoke, and especially at meal times. We must somehow try to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the question that has been posed by the hon. Lady, to whom I am sure we are all very grateful. We do not want the Minister to get up and say, in answer to this simple proposition, "Mine's a Burton."

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate but for the fact that I am probably the only Member present who has been employed by a railway company to prosecute smokers for smoking in non-smoking compartments. I have listened with great interest to the learned points that have been put in this Debate, but I must say that they do not seem to have added anything new. This is a very old problem indeed. There was a time when smoking was a peculiarity that was only indulged in secretly. One used to have a smoking jacket and even a special cap to keep the smoke out of the hair. But that was many years ago.
There was a time when certain compartments were labelled smoking compartments, but that, too, has passed, because most ladies and gentlemen smoke these days and the unusual people are those who do not. From my own observations non-smoking compartments are provided on all trains. There seems to be ample room for non-smokers. I think that the railways have provided adequately for non-smokers, but so far as restaurant cars are concerned, it depends on what railway, or in these days in which region, one is travelling. In certain Regions, certainly in the Western Region, it has been the rule for a considerable period that the first and second lunches in the dining car were to be non-smoking The attendants were instructed to prevent


smoking at these meals, and it was not until after the second lunch or the final lunch, if there were more than two, that the diners were entitled to smoke. Notice to that effect is placed on the table. If that notice is observed, I cannot see what objection there can be to those people who have consumed their meal smoking afterwards, because non-smokers can return, if they like, to their non-smoking compartments.
During the 20-odd years that I was with the solicitor's department of a railway company, we did not have an undue number of complaints about cases in which people smoked in non-smoking compartments. There were a few every year, which led to a few prosecutions. I have no up-to-date information, so that I do not know if this class of offence has increased. I should not be very surprised if it had not. In my experience, the figures remained fairly constant—a few cases and a few prosecutions. Only occasionally was someone unreasonable. I end where I began—it seems to me that ample provision has already been made by the various regions of the railways to provide facilities for non-smokers.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I believe that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has done a service in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. I speak as a smoker. I started some three years ago. I had not the sense to start when cigarettes were 20 for 11½d. I am concerned about this matter, and I feel very much like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that this is an appalling habit which has invaded every sanctum of life. The hon. Member remarked that this Chamber was the only place where we did not smoke. We do not smoke in the council chamber at Bolton. In my time it was not permissible to smoke in the committee rooms, but everyone of those bodies has fallen from grace. Even the watch committee now smoke during their deliberations. I do not know how long the Bolton Town Council in its council chamber will be able to withstand this thing.
In certain political circles a man can contract out, and surely it is not too much to ask that 15 per cent. of the diners on a train should be entitled to contract out of

a polluted atmosphere. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I would go further and say that if something is not done on the lines suggested by the hon. Lady, it will not only be hurtful to nonsmokers but damaging to smokers. There are very active campaigns going on for purer food, and more cleanliness in its preparation. If there is one thing that is bad it is smoke secondhand. It can be the best brand it is possible to buy, but it is ruined if it is received in that way.
I was stricken down with a bad stomach a few years ago, and the doctor said to me that the worst thing that I could do was to smoke immediately before a meal. It is not so bad after a meal. The hon. Member for Coventry, South, does not like smoking after a meal. Is it not a fact that everywhere one goes in a dining car or restaurant, people walk to the dining table with a cigarette dangling from their lips or between their fingers? If 15 per cent. of the diners are asking for the fundamental right to eat away from the pollution of tobacco smoke, the Minister of Transport ought to give it very serious consideration. It is not permitted to smoke inside public service vehicles, and I was surprised in Brighton not long ago when I noticed that they were smoking inside the lower deck of the public service vehicles.

Sir H. Williams: Is that the reason why the public of Lancashire come to Brighton for their holidays?

Mr. Booth: Yes, some of them do go to Brighton. I asked a question at Brighton about this matter, and I was told that the town council had come to the conclusion that as everybody smoked it was no use giving any special domain to the non-smokers. On the important matter touching the cleanliness of food, I would point out that the non-smokers are a very considerable element in the population of this island and that they are entitled to the elementary right of having provision made for them at least to eat within their own circle and without the pollution of tobacco smoke.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The nonchalant speech that was delivered by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who for a time represented, he told us, the railway companies, made


it clear to me why there are so many people in non-smoking compartments who have not the least intention of carrying out the wording of the label on the window. Indeed, I should imagine that if the hon. Gentleman carried out his legal duties as he suggested we might look at this problem tonight, that is one of the main reasons why so few people take not the least notice of the sign "No Smoking." Even my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Poole) is one of the people with whom the hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt before this. My hon. Friend is prepared on occasion surreptitiously to smoke in a non-smoking compartment. I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman behaving in that way, having the sort of views that he has advocated here tonight.
My hon. Friend confessed, and I will admit that I have a common ground with him here, that he started this evil habit of smoking at the age of seven. I think it was about then that I started too, but it had such effects upon me that I have been wise enough to avoid it ever since. At any rate, I am quite clear in my mind that the very good rule which was referred to by the hon. Member for Truro and which formerly existed, that smoking carriages were designated as such, led people to regard their duty in a more serious way than they do now, when the rule has been entirely changed. I observed during the war that there was a general breakdown in the habits of the people who travelled in non-smoking carriages. Perhaps it was the general sympathy that we had for the Service man that led us to feel that he ought to have the right to the narcotic weed or such other enjoyment as he could obtain.
What we are complaining about today is the unwillingness of people to accord to the non-smoker even one table, or at the most a small compartment of four tables, in a resturant car, and their unwillingness to treat fairly the people who do not find their amusement by means of smoke. Like other hon. Members, I warmly commend the action of the hon. Lady in proposing that the Minister should make a new survey of the problem. I am not sure whether the best solution was not that suggested from the National Liberal benches. I have often wondered what the National Liberal benches existed for. I wondered particularly when the National Liberal Member looked at the

empty bench in front of him and deplored the fact that Liberal principles could no longer be advocated here. I see that two Liberal Members are now here. I am sure that they would know what to say upon this matter, but I want to tell them that in their absence there has been a moral recovery on the part of the National Liberal bench and that an hon. Member has discovered a good expedient which I believe ought to be examined carefully by the Minister.
That is that the accommodation in the first-class and third-class restaurant cars should be combined and the space thus available divided between smokers and non-smokers. That proposition needs to be looked at in these democratic days for other reasons. I do not see why in these days anybody should be able to secure first-class accommodation in a dining car, even if they have more to spend. If all the accommodation is thrown together and divided as I have suggested, the Minister will find an easy way out of his difficulties and thus meet the desire of the hon. Lady to have effective non-smoking accommodation provided.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should not have risen but for the provocative remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). The theory that nobody should buy a first-class ticket is not really very popular, nor is the proposal that all should have the same rate of remuneration. If he will talk to his trade union friends he will find that they are very keen on the differentials. It is no good having differentials in incomes unless there are differentials in spending possibilities. Hon. Members opposite do not believe in a classless society—not when they become Members of Parliament evidently.
In all seriousness, my observation is that the non-smokers are treated preferentially at present. Walking along any railway train, one nearly always finds vacant space in the compartments labelled "No Smoking." As a rule there is also vacant space in the rarer compartments labelled "Ladies Only." I remember a discussion once between two ladies of my acquaintance. They were talking about a third lady and what sort of a woman she was. One lady said "She is the kind of woman who on a


long journey always goes into the compartment labelled 'Ladies Only'." What that meant I could not quite discover. I hope that on what used to be called the L.M.S. Railway, and what is now the Midland Region, there will be provided a special car on certain trains bearing the name "The Lady Godiva Car."

9.4 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott: I feel stimulated by the two speeches to which I have had the privilege of listening to add my own plea on this subject. I suggest that yet another form of differential might be mentioned. I gather than one form of distinction has already been suggested between first-class and third-class passengers. There is a distinction between pipe smokers and cigarette smokers. There are very few people who, even if they are non-smokers, can or ought very seriously to object to cigarette smoking, but there are kinds of pipe-smoking which are extremely difficult to stomach. With all due respect to the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), the fact that there are sometimes vacant seats in ordinary nonsmoking compartments does not really touch the issue we are considering tonight. The number of non-smokers is perhaps larger than is sometimes realised, but we nevertheless constitute a minority, and it is for that reason that we hope the Minister will perform the traditional task of seeing that the rights of minorities are protected.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I also hope that as a result of this interesting and useful Debate the Minister will do something about this matter, which I do not think is a trivial one. Nonsmokers have a real grievance and have been subject to many hardships and difficulties and annoyance at having to take their meals in compartments with other people smoking.
I suggest three remedies to the Minister. First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide more accommodation in restaurant cars. Secondly, it is important to see that the rules with regard to non-smoking in compartments set aside for non-smokers are much more rigidly observed in future. Thirdly, I suggest to the hon. Lady and

to other non-smokers that to some extent they have the remedy in their own hands if they will only assert themselves a little more when they are in non-smoking compartments and other people start to smoke.
A classic piece of repartee was made by a lady of my acquaintance travelling in a non-smoking section of a restaurant car. When a complete stranger sat opposite to her and, before anything had been served, said to her, "You do not mind if I smoke, do you?" She replied at once, "No, I do not mind if you smoke, as long as you do not mind if I am sick."

9.8 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I confess immediately that I am on the side of those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on raising this matter this evening. It is a timely matter. It has not only brought us up against a substantial change in the habits of the people, but has disclosed to me the diverse habits and views of my colleagues in the House of Commons. What I am most grateful for is that this is the most pleasant Debate on British Railways I have experienced, and I would welcome more experiences of that character.
The railway companies have always endeavoured to meet the problem of the non-smoker. What we are up against here is that during the war the restaurant car service was completely withdrawn and there was a great change in the attitude of women towards smoking. When the restaurant cars came back, the Railway Executive were faced with this problem. On the old London and North Eastern and London, Midland and Scottish Railways a proportion of their restaurant cars were of a divided character. I cannot say what was the actual proportion, but probably the majority of coaches were of the open vestibule type. On what was the Southern Railway, the Pullman-type of restaurant service is so divided that people can more or less choose the compartment to satisfy their habits. I believe that on the Great Western Railway the open vestibule car was practically universal and that there was very little division in the restaurant cars.
What has happened, as far as I can gather, is that, because of the great


change in the habits of the people, smoking has tended to become universal. It is quite true that notices are exhibited requesting passengers not to smoke before or during the service of meals. We are also aware that on long journeys there are very often two or three services of meals on a particular journey and that whilst the rule may be observed during the first service, it becomes more or less inoperative afterwards.
I am informed that of the 7,000 recent complaints, the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive—they have a joint responsibility in this matter—have received there is only one complaint about the lack of provision of non-smoking accommodation. I do not, however, place any importance on that. I accept completely the principle that the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive must in the long run, provide the requisite accommodation to meet the habits of the people who are travelling.

Mr. Renton: As a matter of accuracy, is not this the responsibility of the Hotels Executive and not of the Railway Executive?

Mr. Barnes: It is bound to be a joint responsibility. The Railway Executive are responsible for the construction of the rolling stock, and, especially under present conditions, with capital investment cuts affecting the building of fresh rolling stock, they must have a large say in the type and design of rolling stock which is to be constructed. There has, in fact, been practically no new construction. The problem, therefore, is largely one of rolling stock and restaurant cars which existed before the war. A good deal of it has been re-conditioned and the tendency, as with most railway rolling stock, has been to move towards the open vestibule type of coaches.
This discussion has been indeed timely, because both Executives ought to be aware of the opinion of hon. Members on a problem of this character, and this discussion, which has taken place before any new building programme comes into operation, will have to be given serious consideration. I should like to make it plain to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, that, while she has appealed particularly to the Minister to do this, that and the other, it is not for the Minister to decide the proportions of

the various types of accommodation in the building of new rolling stock; but it certainly is my responsibility—and I can promise the House that it will be discharged—to convey accurately to those concerned, and with all the power at my disposal, the views which hon. Members have expressed tonight.
Despite the humour and lightheartedness which have been introduced into the Debate, which we all welcome as a relief from our more serious discussions, I do not think anyone will dispute that there is tonight a general feeling on both sides of the House that the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive should take seriously into consideration this demand, not of the general public, but of an important minority of the travelling public.
It is quite true that in public restaurants today there is a general habit of smoking during meals. We must bear in mind that it is not necessary to smoke in the restaurant car itself. The bulk of the accommodation on trains today is at the disposal of the smoking section of the population, and it is not an unreasonable request to ask people to suspend smoking for five or 10 minutes. If they are in a hurry, they can get their bill quickly and repair to sections of the train which are normally provided for smokers. I do not consider that this would inflict any hardship even on the majority who want to smoke, because a journey usually takes a longer time than does a meal, and it is only for a short period that they would be asked to refrain from smoking in a restaurant car.

Miss Burton: I think the Minister was under a delusion in regard to one matter. I was not talking about new rolling stock but of the stock which exists at present and on which I travel. There is room in the small compartments which are part of the dining cars to put up non-smoking labels. I have only asked for such accommodation as is possible. I am much concerned with the tea meal, and I have never seen labels asking people not to smoke during tea.

Mr. Barnes: I was well aware of that, and that appeared to be most reasonable. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible at present to enter a new programme of building, but nevertheless it follows that if a case is made out for the provision of non-smoking accommodation


in the present restaurant cars, once the principle is admitted it ought to be taken into consideration when new rolling stock is introduced.
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) on one of the briefest maiden speeches made in this House. I sincerely trust that when he makes other speeches, which we shall be delighted to hear, he will not put such posers as he submitted to me on this occasion and force me to admit that I am unable to answer the questions he has asked. I regret that I am not able to give him the number of prosecutions which the Railway Executive or the Hotels Executive have undertaken for the non-observance of this rule.
By-laws are in existence and accommodation has been provided in the past; nevertheless, the general habits of the community have changed as a result of the war and nearly everyone has begun to accept the view that the convenience

of the great majority of travellers should be consulted, and the matter has been allowed to go by default. That is why a discussion of this kind is timely and useful. If we ventilate problems of this character, I shall hear less of the complaint that hon. Members cannot discuss the affairs of British Railways.

Mr. Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman express a view about the suggestion I made of using existing divisions between first and third classes in restaurant cars, a view which commended itself to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson)?

Mr. Barnes: I purposely avoided that as I did not want to be drawn into problems which would take us widely afield.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Nine o'Clock.